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 | the Fed | null | antisemitic | 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 | 5,900 |
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-2023-03-01-pt1-PgH1050 | null | 5,901 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. BIGGS: H.J. Res. 36. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article 1, Section 8 The single subject of this legislation is: The single subject is proposing a balenced budget amendment to the Constitution. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-03-01-pt1-PgH1052-26 | null | 5,902 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. DAVIDSON: H.J. Res. 37. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I Section 2 Clause 3 The single subject of this legislation is: Judiciary | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-03-01-pt1-PgH1052-27 | null | 5,903 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mrs. LESKO: H.J. Res. 38. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8 The single subject of this legislation is: Parental rights to be preserved in the U.S. Constitution. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-03-01-pt1-PgH1052-28 | null | 5,904 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following message from the President of the United States; which was read and, together with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed:To the Congress of the United States: Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13692 of March 8, 2015, with respect to the situation in Venezuela is to continue in effect beyond March 8, 2023. The situation in Venezuela continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13692 with respect to the situation in Venezuela. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. The White House, March 1, 2023. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-03-01-pt1-PgH996 | null | 5,905 |
formal | cut taxes | null | racist | Budget Proposals Now, later today, I will join a number of Senate Democratic colleagues to talk about a new report that throws a spotlight on the dangerous ways the Republican budget proposals would harm average Americans. As has been the case so many times this year, this report tells a story of contrasts. On the one hand, Democrats and President Biden have spent the last 2 years reducing the Federal deficit, lowering drug costs, lowering people's energy bills, and making sure the wealthiest pay their fair share. But here are just a few of the things the Republican budget proposals would do. Listen to this. The American people ain't going to like it. Republican proposals would push millions of Americans off Social Security benefits and raise the retirement age to 70. Republican proposals would privatize Medicare, which would gut seniors' benefits, threatening their access to guaranteed services, and force those who are able to remain on Medicare to pay higher premiums. Republican proposals would cut Medicaid by $2.2 trillion and end coverage for tens of millions of Americans, especially people with disabilities, seniors, and families living on lower incomes. A large part of Medicaid goes to help people who are in nursing homes and assisted living, and that takes a huge burden off 30-, 40-, 50-year-olds who want to care for their parents but those high costs are something beyond their budgets. And Republican proposals would narrow healthcare eligibility for veterans and cut VA mandatory funding--and so much more, so much more. These proposals are anathema, I believe, to the American people, for sure, but even to most Republicans. That is why we Democrats keep insisting that Speaker McCarthy answer the one question we have all been asking and gotten no answer to. The question we have been asking Speaker McCarthy is: Where is your plan? We believe a plan this drastic will not get the votes in the Republican conference in the House. So, Speaker McCarthy, show us your plan. Speaker McCarthy, show us your plan. Republicans love to tout themselves as the party of the average Americans, but actions speak louder than words. When Republicans help tax cheats; call for putting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the chopping block; and cut taxes for billionaires and megacorporations, there is no question where they truly stand with the wealthy, with the very well-connected, and with the biggest of corporations. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-01-pt1-PgS542 | null | 5,906 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Budget Proposals Now, later today, I will join a number of Senate Democratic colleagues to talk about a new report that throws a spotlight on the dangerous ways the Republican budget proposals would harm average Americans. As has been the case so many times this year, this report tells a story of contrasts. On the one hand, Democrats and President Biden have spent the last 2 years reducing the Federal deficit, lowering drug costs, lowering people's energy bills, and making sure the wealthiest pay their fair share. But here are just a few of the things the Republican budget proposals would do. Listen to this. The American people ain't going to like it. Republican proposals would push millions of Americans off Social Security benefits and raise the retirement age to 70. Republican proposals would privatize Medicare, which would gut seniors' benefits, threatening their access to guaranteed services, and force those who are able to remain on Medicare to pay higher premiums. Republican proposals would cut Medicaid by $2.2 trillion and end coverage for tens of millions of Americans, especially people with disabilities, seniors, and families living on lower incomes. A large part of Medicaid goes to help people who are in nursing homes and assisted living, and that takes a huge burden off 30-, 40-, 50-year-olds who want to care for their parents but those high costs are something beyond their budgets. And Republican proposals would narrow healthcare eligibility for veterans and cut VA mandatory funding--and so much more, so much more. These proposals are anathema, I believe, to the American people, for sure, but even to most Republicans. That is why we Democrats keep insisting that Speaker McCarthy answer the one question we have all been asking and gotten no answer to. The question we have been asking Speaker McCarthy is: Where is your plan? We believe a plan this drastic will not get the votes in the Republican conference in the House. So, Speaker McCarthy, show us your plan. Speaker McCarthy, show us your plan. Republicans love to tout themselves as the party of the average Americans, but actions speak louder than words. When Republicans help tax cheats; call for putting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the chopping block; and cut taxes for billionaires and megacorporations, there is no question where they truly stand with the wealthy, with the very well-connected, and with the biggest of corporations. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-01-pt1-PgS542 | null | 5,907 |
formal | law and order | null | racist | Commemorating the Bicentennial of the Texas Rangers Mr. President, I also want to take time today to thank another group of Texans for the incredible sacrifices they have made to the Lone Star State over the span of 200 years--the Texas Rangers. This year, 2023, marks 200 years since Stephen F. Austin formed the Texas Rangers to protect people who had settled in Texas--to protect them from outlaws and hostile attacks. Over the years, the duties of the Texas Rangers expanded, and they played a key role in keeping Texas safe, from stopping an assassination attempt on President Taft, to tracking down the infamous outlaws Bonnie and Clyde, to doing the hard, painstaking work to arrest the cult leader Warren Jeffs. The Rangers are critical to law and order in Texas, where rural counties often don't have the resources they need to investigate crime. The Rangers are always ready to step in and serve. There is an old line in the State of Texas: ``One Riot, One Ranger.'' That is who the Texas Rangers are. I have been to the Texas Rangers Hall of Fame in Waco, TX, where the Rangers have done a wonderful job of preserving artifacts and telling the story of the Rangers. Anyone stopping through Waco should visit. The story of the Rangers is the story of Texas and, in many ways, the American West. It is a story about seeking freedom, and it is a story about courage. That is why I am proud to introduce a resolution honoring the bicentennial of the Texas Rangers and in just a moment will propound a unanimous consent request in this body. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-01-pt1-PgS544-2 | null | 5,908 |
formal | coincidence | null | antisemitic | Guantanamo Bay Madam President, I want to tell you about a young law student whose name is Leila Murphy. She was 3 years old when her father Brian was killed. Her oldest sister, Jessica, was only 5. It is a day Leila was too young to remember, let alone comprehend, but for the Americans who are old enough, it is a day we will never forget--9/11/2001. Leila grew up in the shadow of the 9/11 attacks. She recently wrote me apowerful letter about the failure of this country to deliver justice. I quote her: My father, Brian Murphy, worked on the 105th floor of the World Trade Center. [He] was killed when the first plane struck the North Tower. . . . Twenty-two years and four [Presidents] later, there has been no accountability for his death, nor the deaths of nearly three thousand [other Americans that day]. Leila and 3,000 other families like hers have been waiting for justice for 9/11 for almost 20 years, maybe longer. In those two decades, Leila has grown from a toddler to a law student. But the military commission trial against the five 9/11 codefendants in Guantanamo has never even started, 22 years later. Let me repeat that. More than two decades after the attacks, the 9/11 trial has never even started. In her words, she said: The parties are no closer to a trial date than when the hearings began in 2012-- More than a decade ago. In the meantime, many family members have died, and others have given up hope. [They don't know that this] case will ever end in their lifetime. Leila has traveled to Guantanamo to watch the military commission proceedings and came away frustrated and, in her words, ``ashamed''--frustrated at the slow pace and makeshift nature of the proceedings and ashamed to learn how the defendants were actually tortured by her own government. Leila recognizes that because of this history, real justice is now unattainable. By setting up ad hoc military commissions rather than trusting our courts, by torturing detainees rather than securing evidence lawfully, we have made true justice for families like Leila's virtually legally impossible. If pretrial proceedings are still going on 20 years after the event, how many years do you think the actual trial would take? How many years of appeals would then follow? What are the chances that prosecutors can even convict men who were tortured at our hands for years? And if they did, what are the chances that those convictions would be upheld? How many family members would still be alive to see judgments of guilt, if they ever, ever come? The reality is that securing guilty pleas in the 9/11 case is at this point the only way to deliver a modicum of justice to the victims and their families. The Biden administration should step up to the plate and deliver the justice that three previous administrations have failed to provide. In Leila's words: The military commissions have failed to provide justice for 9/11 families. Plea deals are a way out-- The only way out, maybe-- [but the] thing standing in the way is political will. Leila says: It is time for that to change. She is not alone in recognizing that guilty pleas are realistically the only hope for justice. On the morning of 9/11, former Bush administration Solicitor General Ted Olson went to his office at the Justice Department, while his wife Barbara headed to Dulles Airport for a flight to Los Angeles. Barbara had planned to leave the day before, but she delayed her departure by a day so she could wake up with Mr. Olson, her husband, on his birthday. After the two planes hit the World Trade Center towers, Mr. Olson's thoughts turned to his wife's safety. At first, he was relieved when the assistant told him that she was on the phone, but she was calling from the back of the airplane to tell him that her plane had been hijacked. She asked what she could tell the captain--and, then, silence. At 9:37 a.m., American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, killing all 64 people aboard and 125 people in the Pentagon. Barbara was one of those victims. Like Leila, Ted Olson is still awaiting justice, but today he believes that true justice seems unattainable. By coincidence, I ran into him last night at a reception here on Capitol Hill. I went up and introduced myself to him, and I said I was going to talk about his statement and his wife on the floor. And he thanked me for it. He said: It is time for the American people to hear this straight from those of us who were directly impacted by 9/11. In a powerful column earlier this month, Mr. Olson wrote: I now understand that the commissions were doomed from the start. He said: We tried to pursue justice expeditiously in a new, untested legal system. It didn't work. The established legal system of the U.S. would have been capable of rendering a verdict in these difficult cases, but we didn't trust America's tried- and-true courts. He concluded: Nothing will bring back the thousands whose lives were so cruelly taken that September day. But we must face reality and bring this process to an end. The American legal system must move on by closing the book on the military commissions and securing guilty pleas. In the fearful days after 9/11, our Nation's leaders made a fateful decision to forsake our most trusted institutions and betray our cherished values. The decision to open Guantanamo in a rush for vengeance and swift justice instead robbed the victims of 9/11 and their loved ones of their right to true justice. It is time to salvage what justice we can by bringing the commission cases to an end. We must also bring an end to the shameful, shameful indefinite detention of detainees who have never been charged with a crime. More than two decades after the incident of 9/11, these detainees have never been charged with any crime. Eighteen of the thirty-two remaining detainees have never been charged with any crime and have been unanimously cleared for release--18--by our national security and military leadership. Yet they continue to be detained indefinitely--day after day, year after year--for more than two decades. The administration must redouble its effort to transfer the men who have been cleared for release or served their sentences. The recent transfer of three longtime detainees were steps forward, but the administration needs to pick up the pace. Men who have served their time or been cleared for release should not be sitting in Guantanamo. Ending these abuses is a moral and national security imperative. Guantanamo Bay continues to serve the interest of America's worst enemies. Terrorist groups point to the history of torture and indefinite detention in their propaganda and recruitment videos. Autocrats point to Guantanamo to justify their own human rights abuses. Adding insult to injury, this moral stain on our Nation and national security liability continues to be funded by American taxpayers. The cost of Guantanamo is astronomic. We spend more than $540 million each year to keep Guantanamo open for just 32 detainees. Let me repeat that: $540 million a year in taxpayers' money to keep Guantanamo open for 32 detainees. That is nearly $17 million a year for each detainee. It is an outrage. And 18 of those men have been cleared for release for a long period. We must not forget that Guantanamo was set up to be outside the reach of the law, outside the reach of the Constitution, outside the reach of the concept of habeas corpus, outside the reach of due process, and outside the reach of the Geneva Conventions. That is why it was chosen. We must not forget that the detainees were held incommunicado and actually tortured at Guantanamo. We must not forget that more than half the men there still continue to be detained indefinitely without any charge or any trial. In America, we must stand for something better than that. Guantanamo Bay, sadly, is a historic stain on America's long pursuit of the cause of justice. We have a responsibility to release detainees who have never been charged with a crime and have served their time, period, and we have a responsibility to deliver what little justice we still can to the victims of 9/11 and their families. So let's do what must be done. Let's finally salvage a small measure of justice and dignity for Leila, for Ted Olson, and for everyone else who lost a loved one on that terrible day. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-01-pt1-PgS557-2 | null | 5,909 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying report; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:To the Congress of the United States: Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13692 of March 8, 2015, with respect to the situation in Venezuela is to continue in effect beyond March 8, 2023. The situation in Venezuela continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13692 with respect to the situation in Venezuela. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. The White House, March 1, 2023. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-01-pt1-PgS567-2 | null | 5,910 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying report; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:To the Congress of the United States: Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660 of March 6, 2014, which was expanded in scope in Executive Order 13661, Executive Order 13662, and Executive Order 14065, and under which additional steps were taken in Executive Order 13685 and Executive Order 13849, is to continue in effect beyond March 6, 2023. The actions and policies of persons that undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, as well as the actions and policies of the Government of the Russian Federation, including its purported annexation of Crimea and its use of force in Ukraine, continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660 with respect to Ukraine. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. The White House, March 1, 2023. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-01-pt1-PgS567 | null | 5,911 |
formal | entitlements | null | racist | Mr. BRAUN (for himself, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Cassidy, and Mr. Scott of Florida) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Finance: S. Res. 87 Whereas, in January 2023, the total public debt outstanding was more than $31,000,000,000,000, resulting in a total interest expense of more than $717,611,000,000 for fiscal year 2022; Whereas, in January 2023, the total public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product was about 121 percent; Whereas, in January 2023, the debt owed per citizen was $94,240 and $246,864 per taxpayer; Whereas the last Federal budget surplus occurred in 2001; Whereas, in fiscal year 2022, Federal tax receipts totaled $4,896,000,000,000, but Federal outlays totaled $6,272,000,000,000, leaving the Federal Government with a 1- year deficit of $1,376,000,000,000; Whereas the Senate failed to pass a balanced budget for fiscal year 2022 and failed to restore regular order to the legislative process by not allowing Senators to offer and debate amendments; Whereas the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees project that the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be depleted in 2028; Whereas the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees project that the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund will be depleted in 2034; Whereas improvements in the business climate in populous countries, and aging populations around the world, will likely contribute to higher global interest rates; Whereas more than $7,270,000,000,000 of Federal debt is owned by individuals not located in the United States, including more than $870,000,000,000 of which is owned by individuals in China; Whereas China and the European Union are developing alternative payment systems to weaken the dominant position of the United States dollar as a reserve currency; Whereas rapidly increasing interest rates would squeeze all policy priorities of the United States, including defense policy and foreign policy priorities; Whereas, on April 12, 2018, former Secretary of Defense James Mattis warned that ``any Nation that can't keep its fiscal house in order eventually cannot maintain its military power''; Whereas, on March 6, 2018, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned: ``Our continued plunge into debt is unsustainable and represents a dire future threat to our economy and to our national security''; Whereas, on November 15, 2017, former Secretaries of Defense Leon Panetta, Ash Carter, and Chuck Hagel warned: ``Increase in the debt will, in the absence of a comprehensive budget that addresses both entitlements and revenues, force even deeper reductions in our national security capabilities''; and Whereas, on September 22, 2011, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen warned: ``I believe the single, biggest threat to our national security is debt'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes that the national debt is a threat to the national security of the United States; (2) realizes that deficits are unsustainable, irresponsible, and dangerous; (3) commits to restoring regular order in the appropriations process; and (4) commits to preventing the looming fiscal crisis faced by the United States. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-01-pt1-PgS571-2 | null | 5,912 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. BRAUN (for himself, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Cassidy, and Mr. Scott of Florida) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Finance: S. Res. 87 Whereas, in January 2023, the total public debt outstanding was more than $31,000,000,000,000, resulting in a total interest expense of more than $717,611,000,000 for fiscal year 2022; Whereas, in January 2023, the total public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product was about 121 percent; Whereas, in January 2023, the debt owed per citizen was $94,240 and $246,864 per taxpayer; Whereas the last Federal budget surplus occurred in 2001; Whereas, in fiscal year 2022, Federal tax receipts totaled $4,896,000,000,000, but Federal outlays totaled $6,272,000,000,000, leaving the Federal Government with a 1- year deficit of $1,376,000,000,000; Whereas the Senate failed to pass a balanced budget for fiscal year 2022 and failed to restore regular order to the legislative process by not allowing Senators to offer and debate amendments; Whereas the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees project that the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be depleted in 2028; Whereas the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees project that the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund will be depleted in 2034; Whereas improvements in the business climate in populous countries, and aging populations around the world, will likely contribute to higher global interest rates; Whereas more than $7,270,000,000,000 of Federal debt is owned by individuals not located in the United States, including more than $870,000,000,000 of which is owned by individuals in China; Whereas China and the European Union are developing alternative payment systems to weaken the dominant position of the United States dollar as a reserve currency; Whereas rapidly increasing interest rates would squeeze all policy priorities of the United States, including defense policy and foreign policy priorities; Whereas, on April 12, 2018, former Secretary of Defense James Mattis warned that ``any Nation that can't keep its fiscal house in order eventually cannot maintain its military power''; Whereas, on March 6, 2018, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned: ``Our continued plunge into debt is unsustainable and represents a dire future threat to our economy and to our national security''; Whereas, on November 15, 2017, former Secretaries of Defense Leon Panetta, Ash Carter, and Chuck Hagel warned: ``Increase in the debt will, in the absence of a comprehensive budget that addresses both entitlements and revenues, force even deeper reductions in our national security capabilities''; and Whereas, on September 22, 2011, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen warned: ``I believe the single, biggest threat to our national security is debt'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes that the national debt is a threat to the national security of the United States; (2) realizes that deficits are unsustainable, irresponsible, and dangerous; (3) commits to restoring regular order in the appropriations process; and (4) commits to preventing the looming fiscal crisis faced by the United States. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-01-pt1-PgS571-2 | null | 5,913 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. BRAUN (for himself, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Cassidy, and Mr. Scott of Florida) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Finance: S. Res. 87 Whereas, in January 2023, the total public debt outstanding was more than $31,000,000,000,000, resulting in a total interest expense of more than $717,611,000,000 for fiscal year 2022; Whereas, in January 2023, the total public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product was about 121 percent; Whereas, in January 2023, the debt owed per citizen was $94,240 and $246,864 per taxpayer; Whereas the last Federal budget surplus occurred in 2001; Whereas, in fiscal year 2022, Federal tax receipts totaled $4,896,000,000,000, but Federal outlays totaled $6,272,000,000,000, leaving the Federal Government with a 1- year deficit of $1,376,000,000,000; Whereas the Senate failed to pass a balanced budget for fiscal year 2022 and failed to restore regular order to the legislative process by not allowing Senators to offer and debate amendments; Whereas the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees project that the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be depleted in 2028; Whereas the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees project that the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund will be depleted in 2034; Whereas improvements in the business climate in populous countries, and aging populations around the world, will likely contribute to higher global interest rates; Whereas more than $7,270,000,000,000 of Federal debt is owned by individuals not located in the United States, including more than $870,000,000,000 of which is owned by individuals in China; Whereas China and the European Union are developing alternative payment systems to weaken the dominant position of the United States dollar as a reserve currency; Whereas rapidly increasing interest rates would squeeze all policy priorities of the United States, including defense policy and foreign policy priorities; Whereas, on April 12, 2018, former Secretary of Defense James Mattis warned that ``any Nation that can't keep its fiscal house in order eventually cannot maintain its military power''; Whereas, on March 6, 2018, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned: ``Our continued plunge into debt is unsustainable and represents a dire future threat to our economy and to our national security''; Whereas, on November 15, 2017, former Secretaries of Defense Leon Panetta, Ash Carter, and Chuck Hagel warned: ``Increase in the debt will, in the absence of a comprehensive budget that addresses both entitlements and revenues, force even deeper reductions in our national security capabilities''; and Whereas, on September 22, 2011, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen warned: ``I believe the single, biggest threat to our national security is debt'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes that the national debt is a threat to the national security of the United States; (2) realizes that deficits are unsustainable, irresponsible, and dangerous; (3) commits to restoring regular order in the appropriations process; and (4) commits to preventing the looming fiscal crisis faced by the United States. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-01-pt1-PgS571-2 | null | 5,914 |
formal | Janet Yellen | null | antisemitic | Mr. BRAUN (for himself, Mr. Cassidy, and Mr. Scott of Florida) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: S. Res. 89 Whereas noted economists from across the political spectrum have warned that the implementation of Modern Monetary Theory (referred to in this preamble as ``MMT'') would pose a clear danger to the economy of the United States; Whereas, in July 2019, Zach Moller, deputy director of the economic program at Third Way, wrote in a memo the problems associated with MMT, including that-- (1) ``Under an MMT regime, policymakers would need to respond to inflation by doing two of the most unpopular things ever: raising taxes and cutting spending. . . . We can easily imagine divided government's paralysis to fight inflation: Republicans refusing to raise taxes and Democrats refusing to cut spending.''; (2) MMT ``ends our central non-political economic manager'' and ``markets trust the Federal Reserve and, as a result, businesses and individuals have well-anchored inflation expectations. . . . To solve the challenges higher interest rates create, including a possible interest financing spiral, MMT generally says that the Fed will be tasked with keeping interest rates low by making the Federal government, through the Fed, the consistent (if not the primary) purchaser of bonds. This is a different mission for the Fed than it has now. The Fed would no longer be tasked with intervening to keep prices stable because it would be too busy buying bonds. Bond purchases by the Fed generally increase inflation. Thus, the Fed would no longer be an independent manager of the economy.''; and (3) MMT ``destroys foreign confidence in America's finances. . . . Holders of U.S. debt (in the form of treasuries) expect stability in value, a return from their investments, and the ability to be paid back. MMT blows that up. Bondholders would no longer be assured a return on their investment, and it will no longer be as desirable for our creditors to hold U.S. debt.''; Whereas, on May 17, 2019, Joel Griffith, a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, wrote in an article entitled ``The Absurdity of Modern Monetary Theory'' the following: ``There is no free lunch. We will pay either through the visible burden of direct taxation, the hidden tax of inflation, or higher borrowing costs (as the government competes with businesses for available capital). Such realities might not make for a great stump speech, but facing them squarely now can save us a lot of headaches down the road.''; Whereas, on March 25, 2019, Janet Yellen, former Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, disagreed with those individuals promoting MMT who suggest that ``you don't have to worry about interest-rate payments because the central bank can buy the debt'', stating: ``That's a very wrong-minded theory because that's how you get hyper-inflation.''; Whereas former Secretary of the Treasury and Director of the National Economic Council Lawrence H. Summers-- (1) on March 5, 2019, wrote in an opinion piece in the Washington Post entitled ``The left's embrace of modern monetary theory is a recipe for disaster'' that, ``contrary to the claims of modern monetary theorists, it is not true that governments can simply create new money to pay all liabilities coming due and avoid default. As the experience of any number of emerging markets demonstrates, past a certain point, this approach leads to hyperinflation.''; and (2) on March 4, 2019, said that-- (A) MMT is fallacious at multiple levels; (B) past a certain point, MMT leads to hyperinflation; and (C) a policy of relying on a central bank to finance government deficits, as advocated by MMT theorists, would likely result in a collapsing exchange rate; Whereas, on February 26, 2019, Jerome Powell, Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, stated: ``The idea that deficits don't matter for countries that can borrow in their own currency I think is just wrong.''; Whereas, on February 24, 2019, Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, wrote in an article entitled ``What's the Point of Modern Monetary Theory'' that ``the real point of MMT seems to be to deploy misleading rhetoric with the goal of deceiving people about the necessity of taxes in a social democratic system. If successful, these word games might loosen up fiscal and monetary policy a bit in the short term. But insofar as getting government spending permanently up to 50 percent of GDP really will require substantially more taxes in the medium and long term.''; Whereas, on February 21, 2019, Doug Henwood, a journalist and economic analyst, wrote in an article in Jacobin entitled ``Modern Monetary Theory Isn't Helping'' that ``MMT's lack of interest in the relationship between money and the real economy causes adherents to overlook the connection between taxing, spending, and the allocation of resources''; Whereas, on January 28, 2019, in a question and answer session with James Pethokoukis of AEIdeas, Stan Veuger, visiting lecturer of economics at Harvard University, stated that, ``if you take MMTers at their word in the most aggressive sense, then what you would see is a massive debt finance expansion of the welfare state with Medicare for All, with a jobs guarantee, and with concerns about inflation being deferred entirely to elected officials who would have to raise taxes to keep it under control. I think in a scenario like that, we do run a risk of going back to the 1970s pre-Volker style macroeconomics and I think that would be bad.''; Whereas, on January 17, 2019, Michael Strain, Director of Economic Policy Studies at AEI, wrote in an opinion article in Bloomberg entitled ``Modern Monetary Theory Is a Joke That's Not Funny'' that ``if you thought from the start that the whole idea sounded like lunacy, you were right, even if it's possible to admit some sliver of sympathy for it''; Whereas Paul Krugman, winner of the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences-- (1) on March 1, 2019, posted on Twitter a point-by-point rebuttal to an article entitled ``The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People's Economy'' by Stephanie Kelton, which concluded with Krugman tweeting that-- (A) ``Sorry, but this is just a mess. Kelton's response misrepresents standard macroeconomics, my own views, the effects of interest rates, and the process of money creation.''; (B) ``Otherwise I guess it's all fine.''; and (C) ``See what I mean about Calvinball?''; and (2) on February 12, 2019, wrote in an opinion piece in the New York Times the following: ``And debt can't go to infinity--it can't exceed total wealth, and in fact as debt gets ever higher people will demand ever-increasing returns to hold it. So at some point the government would be forced to run large enough primary (non-interest) surpluses to limit debt growth.''; Whereas, on November 15, 2019, Jason Fichtner and Kody Carmody of the Bipartisan Policy Center wrote in a report entitled ``Does the National Debt Matter? A Look at Modern Monetary Theory, or MMT'' that-- (1) ``deficits do have a role to play in public finance'' but, ``as interest rates rise, some private-sector projects no longer make financial sense and are forgone. Crowding out private investment ultimately leads to a misallocation of resources away from their most economically productive use, hampering economic growth. . . . The more we borrow today, the more expensive it will be to continue borrowing in the future. At some point, debt has to be paid back. There is no free lunch.''; (2) ``MMT underestimates other downside risks of debt'' and ``MMT advocates note that inflation is the only restraint on debt-financed spending. This leads some to conclude that under the theory of MMT, debt is not a concern, as governments can simply print more money to pay off debt. Such a theory is roundly rejected by academic economists on both sides of the political spectrum.''; (3) printing money has costs, including a ``loss of credibility for the government'', an ``inflation risk'', and exacerbating ``exchange rates''; (4) ``MMT assumes away politics'' and puts ``the onus of inflation control on Congress, the institution that lately seems worst-equipped to handle it. The Federal Reserve--which has spent a long time building extensive credibility in its commitment to fight inflation--would be largely sidelined.''; (5) ``even MMT admits that deficits and debt matter'', noting that Stephanie Kelton has stated: ``I would never take the position that we ought to move forward, passing legislation with no offsets, to do Green New Deals, and Jobs Guarantees, and Medicare for All. In the end, MMT's arguments largely boil down to a disagreement over how much room there is to borrow without accelerating inflation.''; and (6) it is ``hard to pin MMT down on anything at all'' due, in large part, to the fact that ``prominent supporters of MMT have taken vague, sometimes contradictory positions: When politicians make claims about paying for the Green New Deal through MMT, stay silent, and when economists criticize this view, claim you are being misunderstood.''; Whereas the March 2019 report entitled ``How Reliable is Modern Monetary Theory as a Guide to Policy?'' by Scott Sumner and Patrick Horan of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University found that-- (1) MMT-- (A) has a flawed model of inflation, which overestimates the importance of economic slack; (B) overestimates the revenue that can be earned from the creation of money; (C) overestimates the potency of fiscal policy, while underestimating the effectiveness of monetary policy; (D) overestimates the ability of fiscal authorities to control inflation; and (E) contains too few safeguards against the risks of excessive public debt; and (2) an MMT agenda of having fiscal authorities manage monetary policy would run the risk of-- (A) very high debts; (B) very high inflation; or (C) very high debts and very high inflation, each of which may be very harmful to the broader economy; Whereas the January 2020 working paper entitled ``A Skeptic's Guide to Modern Monetary Theory'' by N. Gregory Mankiw stated: ``Put simply, MMT contains some kernels of truth, but its most novel policy prescriptions do not follow cogently from its premises.''; Whereas the January 2019 report entitled ``Modern Monetary Theory and Policy'' by Stan Veuger of the American Enterprise Institute warned that ``hyperinflation becomes a real risk'' when a government attempts to pay for massive spending by printing money; and Whereas the September 2018 report entitled ``On Empty Purses and MMT Rhetoric'' by George Selgin of the Cato Institute warned that-- (1) when it comes to the ability of Congress to rely on the Treasury to cover expenditures, Congress is, in 1 crucial respect, more constrained than an ordinary household or business is when that household or business relies on a bank to cover expenditures because, if Congress is to avoid running out of money, Congress cannot write checks in amounts exceeding the balances in the general account of the Treasury; and (2) MMT theorists succeed in turning otherwise banal truths about the workings of contemporary monetary systems into novel policy pronouncements that, although tantalizing, are false: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) realizes that large deficits are unsustainable, irresponsible, and dangerous; and (2) recognizes-- (A) that the acceptance of Modern Monetary Theory would lead to higher deficits and higher inflation; and (B) the duty of the Senate to abandon Modern Monetary Theory in favor of mainstream fiscal and monetary frameworks. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-01-pt1-PgS572 | null | 5,915 |
formal | government spending | null | racist | Mr. BRAUN (for himself, Mr. Cassidy, and Mr. Scott of Florida) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: S. Res. 89 Whereas noted economists from across the political spectrum have warned that the implementation of Modern Monetary Theory (referred to in this preamble as ``MMT'') would pose a clear danger to the economy of the United States; Whereas, in July 2019, Zach Moller, deputy director of the economic program at Third Way, wrote in a memo the problems associated with MMT, including that-- (1) ``Under an MMT regime, policymakers would need to respond to inflation by doing two of the most unpopular things ever: raising taxes and cutting spending. . . . We can easily imagine divided government's paralysis to fight inflation: Republicans refusing to raise taxes and Democrats refusing to cut spending.''; (2) MMT ``ends our central non-political economic manager'' and ``markets trust the Federal Reserve and, as a result, businesses and individuals have well-anchored inflation expectations. . . . To solve the challenges higher interest rates create, including a possible interest financing spiral, MMT generally says that the Fed will be tasked with keeping interest rates low by making the Federal government, through the Fed, the consistent (if not the primary) purchaser of bonds. This is a different mission for the Fed than it has now. The Fed would no longer be tasked with intervening to keep prices stable because it would be too busy buying bonds. Bond purchases by the Fed generally increase inflation. Thus, the Fed would no longer be an independent manager of the economy.''; and (3) MMT ``destroys foreign confidence in America's finances. . . . Holders of U.S. debt (in the form of treasuries) expect stability in value, a return from their investments, and the ability to be paid back. MMT blows that up. Bondholders would no longer be assured a return on their investment, and it will no longer be as desirable for our creditors to hold U.S. debt.''; Whereas, on May 17, 2019, Joel Griffith, a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, wrote in an article entitled ``The Absurdity of Modern Monetary Theory'' the following: ``There is no free lunch. We will pay either through the visible burden of direct taxation, the hidden tax of inflation, or higher borrowing costs (as the government competes with businesses for available capital). Such realities might not make for a great stump speech, but facing them squarely now can save us a lot of headaches down the road.''; Whereas, on March 25, 2019, Janet Yellen, former Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, disagreed with those individuals promoting MMT who suggest that ``you don't have to worry about interest-rate payments because the central bank can buy the debt'', stating: ``That's a very wrong-minded theory because that's how you get hyper-inflation.''; Whereas former Secretary of the Treasury and Director of the National Economic Council Lawrence H. Summers-- (1) on March 5, 2019, wrote in an opinion piece in the Washington Post entitled ``The left's embrace of modern monetary theory is a recipe for disaster'' that, ``contrary to the claims of modern monetary theorists, it is not true that governments can simply create new money to pay all liabilities coming due and avoid default. As the experience of any number of emerging markets demonstrates, past a certain point, this approach leads to hyperinflation.''; and (2) on March 4, 2019, said that-- (A) MMT is fallacious at multiple levels; (B) past a certain point, MMT leads to hyperinflation; and (C) a policy of relying on a central bank to finance government deficits, as advocated by MMT theorists, would likely result in a collapsing exchange rate; Whereas, on February 26, 2019, Jerome Powell, Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, stated: ``The idea that deficits don't matter for countries that can borrow in their own currency I think is just wrong.''; Whereas, on February 24, 2019, Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, wrote in an article entitled ``What's the Point of Modern Monetary Theory'' that ``the real point of MMT seems to be to deploy misleading rhetoric with the goal of deceiving people about the necessity of taxes in a social democratic system. If successful, these word games might loosen up fiscal and monetary policy a bit in the short term. But insofar as getting government spending permanently up to 50 percent of GDP really will require substantially more taxes in the medium and long term.''; Whereas, on February 21, 2019, Doug Henwood, a journalist and economic analyst, wrote in an article in Jacobin entitled ``Modern Monetary Theory Isn't Helping'' that ``MMT's lack of interest in the relationship between money and the real economy causes adherents to overlook the connection between taxing, spending, and the allocation of resources''; Whereas, on January 28, 2019, in a question and answer session with James Pethokoukis of AEIdeas, Stan Veuger, visiting lecturer of economics at Harvard University, stated that, ``if you take MMTers at their word in the most aggressive sense, then what you would see is a massive debt finance expansion of the welfare state with Medicare for All, with a jobs guarantee, and with concerns about inflation being deferred entirely to elected officials who would have to raise taxes to keep it under control. I think in a scenario like that, we do run a risk of going back to the 1970s pre-Volker style macroeconomics and I think that would be bad.''; Whereas, on January 17, 2019, Michael Strain, Director of Economic Policy Studies at AEI, wrote in an opinion article in Bloomberg entitled ``Modern Monetary Theory Is a Joke That's Not Funny'' that ``if you thought from the start that the whole idea sounded like lunacy, you were right, even if it's possible to admit some sliver of sympathy for it''; Whereas Paul Krugman, winner of the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences-- (1) on March 1, 2019, posted on Twitter a point-by-point rebuttal to an article entitled ``The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People's Economy'' by Stephanie Kelton, which concluded with Krugman tweeting that-- (A) ``Sorry, but this is just a mess. Kelton's response misrepresents standard macroeconomics, my own views, the effects of interest rates, and the process of money creation.''; (B) ``Otherwise I guess it's all fine.''; and (C) ``See what I mean about Calvinball?''; and (2) on February 12, 2019, wrote in an opinion piece in the New York Times the following: ``And debt can't go to infinity--it can't exceed total wealth, and in fact as debt gets ever higher people will demand ever-increasing returns to hold it. So at some point the government would be forced to run large enough primary (non-interest) surpluses to limit debt growth.''; Whereas, on November 15, 2019, Jason Fichtner and Kody Carmody of the Bipartisan Policy Center wrote in a report entitled ``Does the National Debt Matter? A Look at Modern Monetary Theory, or MMT'' that-- (1) ``deficits do have a role to play in public finance'' but, ``as interest rates rise, some private-sector projects no longer make financial sense and are forgone. Crowding out private investment ultimately leads to a misallocation of resources away from their most economically productive use, hampering economic growth. . . . The more we borrow today, the more expensive it will be to continue borrowing in the future. At some point, debt has to be paid back. There is no free lunch.''; (2) ``MMT underestimates other downside risks of debt'' and ``MMT advocates note that inflation is the only restraint on debt-financed spending. This leads some to conclude that under the theory of MMT, debt is not a concern, as governments can simply print more money to pay off debt. Such a theory is roundly rejected by academic economists on both sides of the political spectrum.''; (3) printing money has costs, including a ``loss of credibility for the government'', an ``inflation risk'', and exacerbating ``exchange rates''; (4) ``MMT assumes away politics'' and puts ``the onus of inflation control on Congress, the institution that lately seems worst-equipped to handle it. The Federal Reserve--which has spent a long time building extensive credibility in its commitment to fight inflation--would be largely sidelined.''; (5) ``even MMT admits that deficits and debt matter'', noting that Stephanie Kelton has stated: ``I would never take the position that we ought to move forward, passing legislation with no offsets, to do Green New Deals, and Jobs Guarantees, and Medicare for All. In the end, MMT's arguments largely boil down to a disagreement over how much room there is to borrow without accelerating inflation.''; and (6) it is ``hard to pin MMT down on anything at all'' due, in large part, to the fact that ``prominent supporters of MMT have taken vague, sometimes contradictory positions: When politicians make claims about paying for the Green New Deal through MMT, stay silent, and when economists criticize this view, claim you are being misunderstood.''; Whereas the March 2019 report entitled ``How Reliable is Modern Monetary Theory as a Guide to Policy?'' by Scott Sumner and Patrick Horan of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University found that-- (1) MMT-- (A) has a flawed model of inflation, which overestimates the importance of economic slack; (B) overestimates the revenue that can be earned from the creation of money; (C) overestimates the potency of fiscal policy, while underestimating the effectiveness of monetary policy; (D) overestimates the ability of fiscal authorities to control inflation; and (E) contains too few safeguards against the risks of excessive public debt; and (2) an MMT agenda of having fiscal authorities manage monetary policy would run the risk of-- (A) very high debts; (B) very high inflation; or (C) very high debts and very high inflation, each of which may be very harmful to the broader economy; Whereas the January 2020 working paper entitled ``A Skeptic's Guide to Modern Monetary Theory'' by N. Gregory Mankiw stated: ``Put simply, MMT contains some kernels of truth, but its most novel policy prescriptions do not follow cogently from its premises.''; Whereas the January 2019 report entitled ``Modern Monetary Theory and Policy'' by Stan Veuger of the American Enterprise Institute warned that ``hyperinflation becomes a real risk'' when a government attempts to pay for massive spending by printing money; and Whereas the September 2018 report entitled ``On Empty Purses and MMT Rhetoric'' by George Selgin of the Cato Institute warned that-- (1) when it comes to the ability of Congress to rely on the Treasury to cover expenditures, Congress is, in 1 crucial respect, more constrained than an ordinary household or business is when that household or business relies on a bank to cover expenditures because, if Congress is to avoid running out of money, Congress cannot write checks in amounts exceeding the balances in the general account of the Treasury; and (2) MMT theorists succeed in turning otherwise banal truths about the workings of contemporary monetary systems into novel policy pronouncements that, although tantalizing, are false: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) realizes that large deficits are unsustainable, irresponsible, and dangerous; and (2) recognizes-- (A) that the acceptance of Modern Monetary Theory would lead to higher deficits and higher inflation; and (B) the duty of the Senate to abandon Modern Monetary Theory in favor of mainstream fiscal and monetary frameworks. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-01-pt1-PgS572 | null | 5,916 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Mr. BRAUN (for himself, Mr. Cassidy, and Mr. Scott of Florida) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: S. Res. 89 Whereas noted economists from across the political spectrum have warned that the implementation of Modern Monetary Theory (referred to in this preamble as ``MMT'') would pose a clear danger to the economy of the United States; Whereas, in July 2019, Zach Moller, deputy director of the economic program at Third Way, wrote in a memo the problems associated with MMT, including that-- (1) ``Under an MMT regime, policymakers would need to respond to inflation by doing two of the most unpopular things ever: raising taxes and cutting spending. . . . We can easily imagine divided government's paralysis to fight inflation: Republicans refusing to raise taxes and Democrats refusing to cut spending.''; (2) MMT ``ends our central non-political economic manager'' and ``markets trust the Federal Reserve and, as a result, businesses and individuals have well-anchored inflation expectations. . . . To solve the challenges higher interest rates create, including a possible interest financing spiral, MMT generally says that the Fed will be tasked with keeping interest rates low by making the Federal government, through the Fed, the consistent (if not the primary) purchaser of bonds. This is a different mission for the Fed than it has now. The Fed would no longer be tasked with intervening to keep prices stable because it would be too busy buying bonds. Bond purchases by the Fed generally increase inflation. Thus, the Fed would no longer be an independent manager of the economy.''; and (3) MMT ``destroys foreign confidence in America's finances. . . . Holders of U.S. debt (in the form of treasuries) expect stability in value, a return from their investments, and the ability to be paid back. MMT blows that up. Bondholders would no longer be assured a return on their investment, and it will no longer be as desirable for our creditors to hold U.S. debt.''; Whereas, on May 17, 2019, Joel Griffith, a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, wrote in an article entitled ``The Absurdity of Modern Monetary Theory'' the following: ``There is no free lunch. We will pay either through the visible burden of direct taxation, the hidden tax of inflation, or higher borrowing costs (as the government competes with businesses for available capital). Such realities might not make for a great stump speech, but facing them squarely now can save us a lot of headaches down the road.''; Whereas, on March 25, 2019, Janet Yellen, former Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, disagreed with those individuals promoting MMT who suggest that ``you don't have to worry about interest-rate payments because the central bank can buy the debt'', stating: ``That's a very wrong-minded theory because that's how you get hyper-inflation.''; Whereas former Secretary of the Treasury and Director of the National Economic Council Lawrence H. Summers-- (1) on March 5, 2019, wrote in an opinion piece in the Washington Post entitled ``The left's embrace of modern monetary theory is a recipe for disaster'' that, ``contrary to the claims of modern monetary theorists, it is not true that governments can simply create new money to pay all liabilities coming due and avoid default. As the experience of any number of emerging markets demonstrates, past a certain point, this approach leads to hyperinflation.''; and (2) on March 4, 2019, said that-- (A) MMT is fallacious at multiple levels; (B) past a certain point, MMT leads to hyperinflation; and (C) a policy of relying on a central bank to finance government deficits, as advocated by MMT theorists, would likely result in a collapsing exchange rate; Whereas, on February 26, 2019, Jerome Powell, Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, stated: ``The idea that deficits don't matter for countries that can borrow in their own currency I think is just wrong.''; Whereas, on February 24, 2019, Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, wrote in an article entitled ``What's the Point of Modern Monetary Theory'' that ``the real point of MMT seems to be to deploy misleading rhetoric with the goal of deceiving people about the necessity of taxes in a social democratic system. If successful, these word games might loosen up fiscal and monetary policy a bit in the short term. But insofar as getting government spending permanently up to 50 percent of GDP really will require substantially more taxes in the medium and long term.''; Whereas, on February 21, 2019, Doug Henwood, a journalist and economic analyst, wrote in an article in Jacobin entitled ``Modern Monetary Theory Isn't Helping'' that ``MMT's lack of interest in the relationship between money and the real economy causes adherents to overlook the connection between taxing, spending, and the allocation of resources''; Whereas, on January 28, 2019, in a question and answer session with James Pethokoukis of AEIdeas, Stan Veuger, visiting lecturer of economics at Harvard University, stated that, ``if you take MMTers at their word in the most aggressive sense, then what you would see is a massive debt finance expansion of the welfare state with Medicare for All, with a jobs guarantee, and with concerns about inflation being deferred entirely to elected officials who would have to raise taxes to keep it under control. I think in a scenario like that, we do run a risk of going back to the 1970s pre-Volker style macroeconomics and I think that would be bad.''; Whereas, on January 17, 2019, Michael Strain, Director of Economic Policy Studies at AEI, wrote in an opinion article in Bloomberg entitled ``Modern Monetary Theory Is a Joke That's Not Funny'' that ``if you thought from the start that the whole idea sounded like lunacy, you were right, even if it's possible to admit some sliver of sympathy for it''; Whereas Paul Krugman, winner of the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences-- (1) on March 1, 2019, posted on Twitter a point-by-point rebuttal to an article entitled ``The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People's Economy'' by Stephanie Kelton, which concluded with Krugman tweeting that-- (A) ``Sorry, but this is just a mess. Kelton's response misrepresents standard macroeconomics, my own views, the effects of interest rates, and the process of money creation.''; (B) ``Otherwise I guess it's all fine.''; and (C) ``See what I mean about Calvinball?''; and (2) on February 12, 2019, wrote in an opinion piece in the New York Times the following: ``And debt can't go to infinity--it can't exceed total wealth, and in fact as debt gets ever higher people will demand ever-increasing returns to hold it. So at some point the government would be forced to run large enough primary (non-interest) surpluses to limit debt growth.''; Whereas, on November 15, 2019, Jason Fichtner and Kody Carmody of the Bipartisan Policy Center wrote in a report entitled ``Does the National Debt Matter? A Look at Modern Monetary Theory, or MMT'' that-- (1) ``deficits do have a role to play in public finance'' but, ``as interest rates rise, some private-sector projects no longer make financial sense and are forgone. Crowding out private investment ultimately leads to a misallocation of resources away from their most economically productive use, hampering economic growth. . . . The more we borrow today, the more expensive it will be to continue borrowing in the future. At some point, debt has to be paid back. There is no free lunch.''; (2) ``MMT underestimates other downside risks of debt'' and ``MMT advocates note that inflation is the only restraint on debt-financed spending. This leads some to conclude that under the theory of MMT, debt is not a concern, as governments can simply print more money to pay off debt. Such a theory is roundly rejected by academic economists on both sides of the political spectrum.''; (3) printing money has costs, including a ``loss of credibility for the government'', an ``inflation risk'', and exacerbating ``exchange rates''; (4) ``MMT assumes away politics'' and puts ``the onus of inflation control on Congress, the institution that lately seems worst-equipped to handle it. The Federal Reserve--which has spent a long time building extensive credibility in its commitment to fight inflation--would be largely sidelined.''; (5) ``even MMT admits that deficits and debt matter'', noting that Stephanie Kelton has stated: ``I would never take the position that we ought to move forward, passing legislation with no offsets, to do Green New Deals, and Jobs Guarantees, and Medicare for All. In the end, MMT's arguments largely boil down to a disagreement over how much room there is to borrow without accelerating inflation.''; and (6) it is ``hard to pin MMT down on anything at all'' due, in large part, to the fact that ``prominent supporters of MMT have taken vague, sometimes contradictory positions: When politicians make claims about paying for the Green New Deal through MMT, stay silent, and when economists criticize this view, claim you are being misunderstood.''; Whereas the March 2019 report entitled ``How Reliable is Modern Monetary Theory as a Guide to Policy?'' by Scott Sumner and Patrick Horan of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University found that-- (1) MMT-- (A) has a flawed model of inflation, which overestimates the importance of economic slack; (B) overestimates the revenue that can be earned from the creation of money; (C) overestimates the potency of fiscal policy, while underestimating the effectiveness of monetary policy; (D) overestimates the ability of fiscal authorities to control inflation; and (E) contains too few safeguards against the risks of excessive public debt; and (2) an MMT agenda of having fiscal authorities manage monetary policy would run the risk of-- (A) very high debts; (B) very high inflation; or (C) very high debts and very high inflation, each of which may be very harmful to the broader economy; Whereas the January 2020 working paper entitled ``A Skeptic's Guide to Modern Monetary Theory'' by N. Gregory Mankiw stated: ``Put simply, MMT contains some kernels of truth, but its most novel policy prescriptions do not follow cogently from its premises.''; Whereas the January 2019 report entitled ``Modern Monetary Theory and Policy'' by Stan Veuger of the American Enterprise Institute warned that ``hyperinflation becomes a real risk'' when a government attempts to pay for massive spending by printing money; and Whereas the September 2018 report entitled ``On Empty Purses and MMT Rhetoric'' by George Selgin of the Cato Institute warned that-- (1) when it comes to the ability of Congress to rely on the Treasury to cover expenditures, Congress is, in 1 crucial respect, more constrained than an ordinary household or business is when that household or business relies on a bank to cover expenditures because, if Congress is to avoid running out of money, Congress cannot write checks in amounts exceeding the balances in the general account of the Treasury; and (2) MMT theorists succeed in turning otherwise banal truths about the workings of contemporary monetary systems into novel policy pronouncements that, although tantalizing, are false: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) realizes that large deficits are unsustainable, irresponsible, and dangerous; and (2) recognizes-- (A) that the acceptance of Modern Monetary Theory would lead to higher deficits and higher inflation; and (B) the duty of the Senate to abandon Modern Monetary Theory in favor of mainstream fiscal and monetary frameworks. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-01-pt1-PgS572 | null | 5,917 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. BRAUN (for himself, Mr. Cassidy, and Mr. Scott of Florida) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: S. Res. 89 Whereas noted economists from across the political spectrum have warned that the implementation of Modern Monetary Theory (referred to in this preamble as ``MMT'') would pose a clear danger to the economy of the United States; Whereas, in July 2019, Zach Moller, deputy director of the economic program at Third Way, wrote in a memo the problems associated with MMT, including that-- (1) ``Under an MMT regime, policymakers would need to respond to inflation by doing two of the most unpopular things ever: raising taxes and cutting spending. . . . We can easily imagine divided government's paralysis to fight inflation: Republicans refusing to raise taxes and Democrats refusing to cut spending.''; (2) MMT ``ends our central non-political economic manager'' and ``markets trust the Federal Reserve and, as a result, businesses and individuals have well-anchored inflation expectations. . . . To solve the challenges higher interest rates create, including a possible interest financing spiral, MMT generally says that the Fed will be tasked with keeping interest rates low by making the Federal government, through the Fed, the consistent (if not the primary) purchaser of bonds. This is a different mission for the Fed than it has now. The Fed would no longer be tasked with intervening to keep prices stable because it would be too busy buying bonds. Bond purchases by the Fed generally increase inflation. Thus, the Fed would no longer be an independent manager of the economy.''; and (3) MMT ``destroys foreign confidence in America's finances. . . . Holders of U.S. debt (in the form of treasuries) expect stability in value, a return from their investments, and the ability to be paid back. MMT blows that up. Bondholders would no longer be assured a return on their investment, and it will no longer be as desirable for our creditors to hold U.S. debt.''; Whereas, on May 17, 2019, Joel Griffith, a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, wrote in an article entitled ``The Absurdity of Modern Monetary Theory'' the following: ``There is no free lunch. We will pay either through the visible burden of direct taxation, the hidden tax of inflation, or higher borrowing costs (as the government competes with businesses for available capital). Such realities might not make for a great stump speech, but facing them squarely now can save us a lot of headaches down the road.''; Whereas, on March 25, 2019, Janet Yellen, former Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, disagreed with those individuals promoting MMT who suggest that ``you don't have to worry about interest-rate payments because the central bank can buy the debt'', stating: ``That's a very wrong-minded theory because that's how you get hyper-inflation.''; Whereas former Secretary of the Treasury and Director of the National Economic Council Lawrence H. Summers-- (1) on March 5, 2019, wrote in an opinion piece in the Washington Post entitled ``The left's embrace of modern monetary theory is a recipe for disaster'' that, ``contrary to the claims of modern monetary theorists, it is not true that governments can simply create new money to pay all liabilities coming due and avoid default. As the experience of any number of emerging markets demonstrates, past a certain point, this approach leads to hyperinflation.''; and (2) on March 4, 2019, said that-- (A) MMT is fallacious at multiple levels; (B) past a certain point, MMT leads to hyperinflation; and (C) a policy of relying on a central bank to finance government deficits, as advocated by MMT theorists, would likely result in a collapsing exchange rate; Whereas, on February 26, 2019, Jerome Powell, Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, stated: ``The idea that deficits don't matter for countries that can borrow in their own currency I think is just wrong.''; Whereas, on February 24, 2019, Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, wrote in an article entitled ``What's the Point of Modern Monetary Theory'' that ``the real point of MMT seems to be to deploy misleading rhetoric with the goal of deceiving people about the necessity of taxes in a social democratic system. If successful, these word games might loosen up fiscal and monetary policy a bit in the short term. But insofar as getting government spending permanently up to 50 percent of GDP really will require substantially more taxes in the medium and long term.''; Whereas, on February 21, 2019, Doug Henwood, a journalist and economic analyst, wrote in an article in Jacobin entitled ``Modern Monetary Theory Isn't Helping'' that ``MMT's lack of interest in the relationship between money and the real economy causes adherents to overlook the connection between taxing, spending, and the allocation of resources''; Whereas, on January 28, 2019, in a question and answer session with James Pethokoukis of AEIdeas, Stan Veuger, visiting lecturer of economics at Harvard University, stated that, ``if you take MMTers at their word in the most aggressive sense, then what you would see is a massive debt finance expansion of the welfare state with Medicare for All, with a jobs guarantee, and with concerns about inflation being deferred entirely to elected officials who would have to raise taxes to keep it under control. I think in a scenario like that, we do run a risk of going back to the 1970s pre-Volker style macroeconomics and I think that would be bad.''; Whereas, on January 17, 2019, Michael Strain, Director of Economic Policy Studies at AEI, wrote in an opinion article in Bloomberg entitled ``Modern Monetary Theory Is a Joke That's Not Funny'' that ``if you thought from the start that the whole idea sounded like lunacy, you were right, even if it's possible to admit some sliver of sympathy for it''; Whereas Paul Krugman, winner of the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences-- (1) on March 1, 2019, posted on Twitter a point-by-point rebuttal to an article entitled ``The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People's Economy'' by Stephanie Kelton, which concluded with Krugman tweeting that-- (A) ``Sorry, but this is just a mess. Kelton's response misrepresents standard macroeconomics, my own views, the effects of interest rates, and the process of money creation.''; (B) ``Otherwise I guess it's all fine.''; and (C) ``See what I mean about Calvinball?''; and (2) on February 12, 2019, wrote in an opinion piece in the New York Times the following: ``And debt can't go to infinity--it can't exceed total wealth, and in fact as debt gets ever higher people will demand ever-increasing returns to hold it. So at some point the government would be forced to run large enough primary (non-interest) surpluses to limit debt growth.''; Whereas, on November 15, 2019, Jason Fichtner and Kody Carmody of the Bipartisan Policy Center wrote in a report entitled ``Does the National Debt Matter? A Look at Modern Monetary Theory, or MMT'' that-- (1) ``deficits do have a role to play in public finance'' but, ``as interest rates rise, some private-sector projects no longer make financial sense and are forgone. Crowding out private investment ultimately leads to a misallocation of resources away from their most economically productive use, hampering economic growth. . . . The more we borrow today, the more expensive it will be to continue borrowing in the future. At some point, debt has to be paid back. There is no free lunch.''; (2) ``MMT underestimates other downside risks of debt'' and ``MMT advocates note that inflation is the only restraint on debt-financed spending. This leads some to conclude that under the theory of MMT, debt is not a concern, as governments can simply print more money to pay off debt. Such a theory is roundly rejected by academic economists on both sides of the political spectrum.''; (3) printing money has costs, including a ``loss of credibility for the government'', an ``inflation risk'', and exacerbating ``exchange rates''; (4) ``MMT assumes away politics'' and puts ``the onus of inflation control on Congress, the institution that lately seems worst-equipped to handle it. The Federal Reserve--which has spent a long time building extensive credibility in its commitment to fight inflation--would be largely sidelined.''; (5) ``even MMT admits that deficits and debt matter'', noting that Stephanie Kelton has stated: ``I would never take the position that we ought to move forward, passing legislation with no offsets, to do Green New Deals, and Jobs Guarantees, and Medicare for All. In the end, MMT's arguments largely boil down to a disagreement over how much room there is to borrow without accelerating inflation.''; and (6) it is ``hard to pin MMT down on anything at all'' due, in large part, to the fact that ``prominent supporters of MMT have taken vague, sometimes contradictory positions: When politicians make claims about paying for the Green New Deal through MMT, stay silent, and when economists criticize this view, claim you are being misunderstood.''; Whereas the March 2019 report entitled ``How Reliable is Modern Monetary Theory as a Guide to Policy?'' by Scott Sumner and Patrick Horan of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University found that-- (1) MMT-- (A) has a flawed model of inflation, which overestimates the importance of economic slack; (B) overestimates the revenue that can be earned from the creation of money; (C) overestimates the potency of fiscal policy, while underestimating the effectiveness of monetary policy; (D) overestimates the ability of fiscal authorities to control inflation; and (E) contains too few safeguards against the risks of excessive public debt; and (2) an MMT agenda of having fiscal authorities manage monetary policy would run the risk of-- (A) very high debts; (B) very high inflation; or (C) very high debts and very high inflation, each of which may be very harmful to the broader economy; Whereas the January 2020 working paper entitled ``A Skeptic's Guide to Modern Monetary Theory'' by N. Gregory Mankiw stated: ``Put simply, MMT contains some kernels of truth, but its most novel policy prescriptions do not follow cogently from its premises.''; Whereas the January 2019 report entitled ``Modern Monetary Theory and Policy'' by Stan Veuger of the American Enterprise Institute warned that ``hyperinflation becomes a real risk'' when a government attempts to pay for massive spending by printing money; and Whereas the September 2018 report entitled ``On Empty Purses and MMT Rhetoric'' by George Selgin of the Cato Institute warned that-- (1) when it comes to the ability of Congress to rely on the Treasury to cover expenditures, Congress is, in 1 crucial respect, more constrained than an ordinary household or business is when that household or business relies on a bank to cover expenditures because, if Congress is to avoid running out of money, Congress cannot write checks in amounts exceeding the balances in the general account of the Treasury; and (2) MMT theorists succeed in turning otherwise banal truths about the workings of contemporary monetary systems into novel policy pronouncements that, although tantalizing, are false: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) realizes that large deficits are unsustainable, irresponsible, and dangerous; and (2) recognizes-- (A) that the acceptance of Modern Monetary Theory would lead to higher deficits and higher inflation; and (B) the duty of the Senate to abandon Modern Monetary Theory in favor of mainstream fiscal and monetary frameworks. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-01-pt1-PgS572 | null | 5,918 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. BRAUN (for himself, Mr. Cassidy, and Mr. Scott of Florida) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: S. Res. 89 Whereas noted economists from across the political spectrum have warned that the implementation of Modern Monetary Theory (referred to in this preamble as ``MMT'') would pose a clear danger to the economy of the United States; Whereas, in July 2019, Zach Moller, deputy director of the economic program at Third Way, wrote in a memo the problems associated with MMT, including that-- (1) ``Under an MMT regime, policymakers would need to respond to inflation by doing two of the most unpopular things ever: raising taxes and cutting spending. . . . We can easily imagine divided government's paralysis to fight inflation: Republicans refusing to raise taxes and Democrats refusing to cut spending.''; (2) MMT ``ends our central non-political economic manager'' and ``markets trust the Federal Reserve and, as a result, businesses and individuals have well-anchored inflation expectations. . . . To solve the challenges higher interest rates create, including a possible interest financing spiral, MMT generally says that the Fed will be tasked with keeping interest rates low by making the Federal government, through the Fed, the consistent (if not the primary) purchaser of bonds. This is a different mission for the Fed than it has now. The Fed would no longer be tasked with intervening to keep prices stable because it would be too busy buying bonds. Bond purchases by the Fed generally increase inflation. Thus, the Fed would no longer be an independent manager of the economy.''; and (3) MMT ``destroys foreign confidence in America's finances. . . . Holders of U.S. debt (in the form of treasuries) expect stability in value, a return from their investments, and the ability to be paid back. MMT blows that up. Bondholders would no longer be assured a return on their investment, and it will no longer be as desirable for our creditors to hold U.S. debt.''; Whereas, on May 17, 2019, Joel Griffith, a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, wrote in an article entitled ``The Absurdity of Modern Monetary Theory'' the following: ``There is no free lunch. We will pay either through the visible burden of direct taxation, the hidden tax of inflation, or higher borrowing costs (as the government competes with businesses for available capital). Such realities might not make for a great stump speech, but facing them squarely now can save us a lot of headaches down the road.''; Whereas, on March 25, 2019, Janet Yellen, former Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, disagreed with those individuals promoting MMT who suggest that ``you don't have to worry about interest-rate payments because the central bank can buy the debt'', stating: ``That's a very wrong-minded theory because that's how you get hyper-inflation.''; Whereas former Secretary of the Treasury and Director of the National Economic Council Lawrence H. Summers-- (1) on March 5, 2019, wrote in an opinion piece in the Washington Post entitled ``The left's embrace of modern monetary theory is a recipe for disaster'' that, ``contrary to the claims of modern monetary theorists, it is not true that governments can simply create new money to pay all liabilities coming due and avoid default. As the experience of any number of emerging markets demonstrates, past a certain point, this approach leads to hyperinflation.''; and (2) on March 4, 2019, said that-- (A) MMT is fallacious at multiple levels; (B) past a certain point, MMT leads to hyperinflation; and (C) a policy of relying on a central bank to finance government deficits, as advocated by MMT theorists, would likely result in a collapsing exchange rate; Whereas, on February 26, 2019, Jerome Powell, Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, stated: ``The idea that deficits don't matter for countries that can borrow in their own currency I think is just wrong.''; Whereas, on February 24, 2019, Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, wrote in an article entitled ``What's the Point of Modern Monetary Theory'' that ``the real point of MMT seems to be to deploy misleading rhetoric with the goal of deceiving people about the necessity of taxes in a social democratic system. If successful, these word games might loosen up fiscal and monetary policy a bit in the short term. But insofar as getting government spending permanently up to 50 percent of GDP really will require substantially more taxes in the medium and long term.''; Whereas, on February 21, 2019, Doug Henwood, a journalist and economic analyst, wrote in an article in Jacobin entitled ``Modern Monetary Theory Isn't Helping'' that ``MMT's lack of interest in the relationship between money and the real economy causes adherents to overlook the connection between taxing, spending, and the allocation of resources''; Whereas, on January 28, 2019, in a question and answer session with James Pethokoukis of AEIdeas, Stan Veuger, visiting lecturer of economics at Harvard University, stated that, ``if you take MMTers at their word in the most aggressive sense, then what you would see is a massive debt finance expansion of the welfare state with Medicare for All, with a jobs guarantee, and with concerns about inflation being deferred entirely to elected officials who would have to raise taxes to keep it under control. I think in a scenario like that, we do run a risk of going back to the 1970s pre-Volker style macroeconomics and I think that would be bad.''; Whereas, on January 17, 2019, Michael Strain, Director of Economic Policy Studies at AEI, wrote in an opinion article in Bloomberg entitled ``Modern Monetary Theory Is a Joke That's Not Funny'' that ``if you thought from the start that the whole idea sounded like lunacy, you were right, even if it's possible to admit some sliver of sympathy for it''; Whereas Paul Krugman, winner of the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences-- (1) on March 1, 2019, posted on Twitter a point-by-point rebuttal to an article entitled ``The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People's Economy'' by Stephanie Kelton, which concluded with Krugman tweeting that-- (A) ``Sorry, but this is just a mess. Kelton's response misrepresents standard macroeconomics, my own views, the effects of interest rates, and the process of money creation.''; (B) ``Otherwise I guess it's all fine.''; and (C) ``See what I mean about Calvinball?''; and (2) on February 12, 2019, wrote in an opinion piece in the New York Times the following: ``And debt can't go to infinity--it can't exceed total wealth, and in fact as debt gets ever higher people will demand ever-increasing returns to hold it. So at some point the government would be forced to run large enough primary (non-interest) surpluses to limit debt growth.''; Whereas, on November 15, 2019, Jason Fichtner and Kody Carmody of the Bipartisan Policy Center wrote in a report entitled ``Does the National Debt Matter? A Look at Modern Monetary Theory, or MMT'' that-- (1) ``deficits do have a role to play in public finance'' but, ``as interest rates rise, some private-sector projects no longer make financial sense and are forgone. Crowding out private investment ultimately leads to a misallocation of resources away from their most economically productive use, hampering economic growth. . . . The more we borrow today, the more expensive it will be to continue borrowing in the future. At some point, debt has to be paid back. There is no free lunch.''; (2) ``MMT underestimates other downside risks of debt'' and ``MMT advocates note that inflation is the only restraint on debt-financed spending. This leads some to conclude that under the theory of MMT, debt is not a concern, as governments can simply print more money to pay off debt. Such a theory is roundly rejected by academic economists on both sides of the political spectrum.''; (3) printing money has costs, including a ``loss of credibility for the government'', an ``inflation risk'', and exacerbating ``exchange rates''; (4) ``MMT assumes away politics'' and puts ``the onus of inflation control on Congress, the institution that lately seems worst-equipped to handle it. The Federal Reserve--which has spent a long time building extensive credibility in its commitment to fight inflation--would be largely sidelined.''; (5) ``even MMT admits that deficits and debt matter'', noting that Stephanie Kelton has stated: ``I would never take the position that we ought to move forward, passing legislation with no offsets, to do Green New Deals, and Jobs Guarantees, and Medicare for All. In the end, MMT's arguments largely boil down to a disagreement over how much room there is to borrow without accelerating inflation.''; and (6) it is ``hard to pin MMT down on anything at all'' due, in large part, to the fact that ``prominent supporters of MMT have taken vague, sometimes contradictory positions: When politicians make claims about paying for the Green New Deal through MMT, stay silent, and when economists criticize this view, claim you are being misunderstood.''; Whereas the March 2019 report entitled ``How Reliable is Modern Monetary Theory as a Guide to Policy?'' by Scott Sumner and Patrick Horan of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University found that-- (1) MMT-- (A) has a flawed model of inflation, which overestimates the importance of economic slack; (B) overestimates the revenue that can be earned from the creation of money; (C) overestimates the potency of fiscal policy, while underestimating the effectiveness of monetary policy; (D) overestimates the ability of fiscal authorities to control inflation; and (E) contains too few safeguards against the risks of excessive public debt; and (2) an MMT agenda of having fiscal authorities manage monetary policy would run the risk of-- (A) very high debts; (B) very high inflation; or (C) very high debts and very high inflation, each of which may be very harmful to the broader economy; Whereas the January 2020 working paper entitled ``A Skeptic's Guide to Modern Monetary Theory'' by N. Gregory Mankiw stated: ``Put simply, MMT contains some kernels of truth, but its most novel policy prescriptions do not follow cogently from its premises.''; Whereas the January 2019 report entitled ``Modern Monetary Theory and Policy'' by Stan Veuger of the American Enterprise Institute warned that ``hyperinflation becomes a real risk'' when a government attempts to pay for massive spending by printing money; and Whereas the September 2018 report entitled ``On Empty Purses and MMT Rhetoric'' by George Selgin of the Cato Institute warned that-- (1) when it comes to the ability of Congress to rely on the Treasury to cover expenditures, Congress is, in 1 crucial respect, more constrained than an ordinary household or business is when that household or business relies on a bank to cover expenditures because, if Congress is to avoid running out of money, Congress cannot write checks in amounts exceeding the balances in the general account of the Treasury; and (2) MMT theorists succeed in turning otherwise banal truths about the workings of contemporary monetary systems into novel policy pronouncements that, although tantalizing, are false: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) realizes that large deficits are unsustainable, irresponsible, and dangerous; and (2) recognizes-- (A) that the acceptance of Modern Monetary Theory would lead to higher deficits and higher inflation; and (B) the duty of the Senate to abandon Modern Monetary Theory in favor of mainstream fiscal and monetary frameworks. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-01-pt1-PgS572 | null | 5,919 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I have to tell you, this past weekend, I stood with the Williams' family and Shaw family, with hundreds of other folks, and I listened to live music in the Historic Big 10 Ballroom. Now, that may not mean a lot to a lot of folks in this room, but it is a really big deal in my State, in Oklahoma, to hear live music in the Big 10 Ballroom. Let me set the scene for you: Lonnie Williams was one of the first African-American police officers in Tulsa, OK. Now, I have spoken many times to this body about Greenwood and about the race massacre that happened May 31 and June 1 of 1921. We have talked at length about what happened during that time for what is, in all likelihood, the worst race massacre in American history. It was in 1921. So for Lonnie Williams to be one of the first Black police officers in Tulsa was really a big deal. He served in the police department, and he opened up several other businesses as his side hustle, and then, eventually, opened up what he called the Big 10 Ballroom in 1948. It was a venue for Black artists to be able to come in because in 1948, a lot of Black artists couldn't play in a lot of auditoriums in America, including in my State. So they would invite these great musicians to be able to come through, that they would tour, and there was this kind of behind-the-scenes group of venues that was scattered through the country where Black artists could perform, and the one that we had in Oklahoma was the Big 10. Now, it was no simple thing for them to be able to travel because at the time when those Black artists were traveling, they couldn't be in a lot of hotels; they couldn't eat in a lot of restaurants. But when they came to Greenwood, there were still families who would welcome them in. The Williams' family, who owned the Big 10, their family, in fact, would host folks. They still tell stories about getting up in the morning and stepping over the Temptations sleeping in their living room. And when I talk about artists playing in the Big 10, I am not talking about just any artists in American history; I am talking about Count Basie, Ella Fitzgerald, Ike and Tina Turner, Ray Charles, James Brown, Wilson Pickett, B.B. King, Fats Domino, Little Richard, and I have already mentioned the Temptations. Interestingly enough, the last place that Otis Redding played before he died in a plane crash was the Big 10 Ballroom in Tulsa, OK. Now you know why we call it the Historic Big 10 Ballroom. That Ballroom was the place to be able to get music in North Tulsa for decades, and then it closed down in the 1960s. A lot of urban renewal was happening in that area, and a lot of things were shifting. The building was used for a while as a beauty supply warehouse, quite frankly. The roof caved in eventually as they abandoned it, and it sat idle for more than two decades. Quite frankly, an eyesore in the neighborhood, but to the Williams family and to lots of other folks in North Tulsa, when they drove up and down Apache, they would still see the glory of the Big 10 and what she could be in the days ahead. But no one took the risk because all that was going to get the Big 10 back alive was hope and a whole bunch of money, until Dr. Lester Shaw stood in the parking lot of the Big 10 and saw it not for what it was--quite frankly, a place where more pigeons lived than anything else--but for what she could be again. In 2007, Dr. Shaw bought that building. Quite frankly, his wife was pretty nervous about it, thinking what in the world. But Brenda Shaw knows her husband Lester well, and when he got an idea, she knew it must be from God and it was going to turn out OK because he was going to be tenacious enough to get it done. You see, Dr. Shaw and Brenda Shaw--by the way, both doctors now, so it is Dr. and Dr. Shaw--the two of them have for the last 23 years committed every second of their spare time to thousands of kids in Greenwood. They run a ministry after school called A Pocket Full of Hope, and a Pocket Full of Hope teaches arts, music, photography, videography. They invest in the lives of students in that area, and for the last 23 years as they have mentored kids after school--brace yourself--they have helped 100 percent of those kids graduate from high school, not a single one of them hasn't finished high school. They traveled all over the country, including right here to Washington, DC, to be able to perform music, but they never really had a place to perform. They really never had a place that was their own. In this location, where they have about 350 people a year who come through to be able to be mentored by Pocket players--those who have gone through Pocket Full of Hope in the past and those who are helping--and for Lester Shaw and his leadership, those folks have made a remarkable difference in the community. Dr. Shaw, in 2007, saw the Big 10 for what she could be again and, last weekend, what she is again. There is live music again at the Big 10. I was listening to it last weekend as it came alive, and you couldn't imagine how beautiful the inside of that building is, as the community and different groups have all invested dollars and lots of sweat and blood and tears to be able to bring it back again. And when you drive down Apache now, you see the Big 10. You see, Black history is not all ancient history. Black history in America and Black history in my State is still going on right now because people like Lonnie Williams, who set a path for my State and my community decades ago--that baton is being picked up by folks like Dr. Lester Shaw, and they are doing remarkable work to help thousands of students. So, for me, I was honored to sit and listen to live music in the Big 10. And if anybody is traveling through Tulsa, I would encourage you to swing down Apache and hear live music in the same place where B.B. King and James Brown and Ray Charles, Tina Turner, Count Basie, and Fats Domino sang, the place intended to be able to hear history come alive. By the way, Big 10 is not called the Big 10 anymore. Now they call it the Historic Big 10. We are living out history right now, and I am grateful for the Williams family and the legacy they have left and what Dr. Shaw has picked up. God bless them in the work, and we are grateful for what they have done in the past. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LANKFORD | Senate | CREC-2023-03-01-pt1-PgS612-4 | null | 5,920 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I have to tell you, this past weekend, I stood with the Williams' family and Shaw family, with hundreds of other folks, and I listened to live music in the Historic Big 10 Ballroom. Now, that may not mean a lot to a lot of folks in this room, but it is a really big deal in my State, in Oklahoma, to hear live music in the Big 10 Ballroom. Let me set the scene for you: Lonnie Williams was one of the first African-American police officers in Tulsa, OK. Now, I have spoken many times to this body about Greenwood and about the race massacre that happened May 31 and June 1 of 1921. We have talked at length about what happened during that time for what is, in all likelihood, the worst race massacre in American history. It was in 1921. So for Lonnie Williams to be one of the first Black police officers in Tulsa was really a big deal. He served in the police department, and he opened up several other businesses as his side hustle, and then, eventually, opened up what he called the Big 10 Ballroom in 1948. It was a venue for Black artists to be able to come in because in 1948, a lot of Black artists couldn't play in a lot of auditoriums in America, including in my State. So they would invite these great musicians to be able to come through, that they would tour, and there was this kind of behind-the-scenes group of venues that was scattered through the country where Black artists could perform, and the one that we had in Oklahoma was the Big 10. Now, it was no simple thing for them to be able to travel because at the time when those Black artists were traveling, they couldn't be in a lot of hotels; they couldn't eat in a lot of restaurants. But when they came to Greenwood, there were still families who would welcome them in. The Williams' family, who owned the Big 10, their family, in fact, would host folks. They still tell stories about getting up in the morning and stepping over the Temptations sleeping in their living room. And when I talk about artists playing in the Big 10, I am not talking about just any artists in American history; I am talking about Count Basie, Ella Fitzgerald, Ike and Tina Turner, Ray Charles, James Brown, Wilson Pickett, B.B. King, Fats Domino, Little Richard, and I have already mentioned the Temptations. Interestingly enough, the last place that Otis Redding played before he died in a plane crash was the Big 10 Ballroom in Tulsa, OK. Now you know why we call it the Historic Big 10 Ballroom. That Ballroom was the place to be able to get music in North Tulsa for decades, and then it closed down in the 1960s. A lot of urban renewal was happening in that area, and a lot of things were shifting. The building was used for a while as a beauty supply warehouse, quite frankly. The roof caved in eventually as they abandoned it, and it sat idle for more than two decades. Quite frankly, an eyesore in the neighborhood, but to the Williams family and to lots of other folks in North Tulsa, when they drove up and down Apache, they would still see the glory of the Big 10 and what she could be in the days ahead. But no one took the risk because all that was going to get the Big 10 back alive was hope and a whole bunch of money, until Dr. Lester Shaw stood in the parking lot of the Big 10 and saw it not for what it was--quite frankly, a place where more pigeons lived than anything else--but for what she could be again. In 2007, Dr. Shaw bought that building. Quite frankly, his wife was pretty nervous about it, thinking what in the world. But Brenda Shaw knows her husband Lester well, and when he got an idea, she knew it must be from God and it was going to turn out OK because he was going to be tenacious enough to get it done. You see, Dr. Shaw and Brenda Shaw--by the way, both doctors now, so it is Dr. and Dr. Shaw--the two of them have for the last 23 years committed every second of their spare time to thousands of kids in Greenwood. They run a ministry after school called A Pocket Full of Hope, and a Pocket Full of Hope teaches arts, music, photography, videography. They invest in the lives of students in that area, and for the last 23 years as they have mentored kids after school--brace yourself--they have helped 100 percent of those kids graduate from high school, not a single one of them hasn't finished high school. They traveled all over the country, including right here to Washington, DC, to be able to perform music, but they never really had a place to perform. They really never had a place that was their own. In this location, where they have about 350 people a year who come through to be able to be mentored by Pocket players--those who have gone through Pocket Full of Hope in the past and those who are helping--and for Lester Shaw and his leadership, those folks have made a remarkable difference in the community. Dr. Shaw, in 2007, saw the Big 10 for what she could be again and, last weekend, what she is again. There is live music again at the Big 10. I was listening to it last weekend as it came alive, and you couldn't imagine how beautiful the inside of that building is, as the community and different groups have all invested dollars and lots of sweat and blood and tears to be able to bring it back again. And when you drive down Apache now, you see the Big 10. You see, Black history is not all ancient history. Black history in America and Black history in my State is still going on right now because people like Lonnie Williams, who set a path for my State and my community decades ago--that baton is being picked up by folks like Dr. Lester Shaw, and they are doing remarkable work to help thousands of students. So, for me, I was honored to sit and listen to live music in the Big 10. And if anybody is traveling through Tulsa, I would encourage you to swing down Apache and hear live music in the same place where B.B. King and James Brown and Ray Charles, Tina Turner, Count Basie, and Fats Domino sang, the place intended to be able to hear history come alive. By the way, Big 10 is not called the Big 10 anymore. Now they call it the Historic Big 10. We are living out history right now, and I am grateful for the Williams family and the legacy they have left and what Dr. Shaw has picked up. God bless them in the work, and we are grateful for what they have done in the past. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LANKFORD | Senate | CREC-2023-03-01-pt1-PgS612-4 | null | 5,921 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to honor the memory of Oswaldo Paya, who would have celebrated his 71st birthday this week. His memory and his story have been an inspiration to dissidents across the world, and I would like to briefly retell it here today. Oswaldo Paya was a dissident and a democracy activist in Cuba with unrelenting passion and dedication. He was someone who stood up against the Castro regime at very direct risk to his own life. He had incredible courage. He spoke up for human rights. He spoke up for free speech. He spoke up for democracy. Eleven years ago, Oswaldo Paya was murdered. On July 22, 2012, Paya left his house with three other people to go visit friends. From the start of their journey, their car was followed. On the way, the Cuban police drove Paya's car off the road and killed him. The crash is widely believed to have been orchestrated by the Castro regime. Paya had long been a thorn in the side of the Castros, even from a young age. He was the only person at his school who had refused to join the Communist Youth. As a teenager, he publicly opposed the communist crackdown on protesters in Czechoslovakia who were fighting for freedom, and he was punished with 3 years in prison. Paya went on to found the Varela Project, which sought a referendum on Cuba's communist system. Their demands were simple: democratic government, religious liberty, freedom of expression, and the freedom to start businesses. Paya managed to get 11,000 signatures to petition the government to hold a referendum, and eventually 20,000 people supported the referendum. Twenty thousand people risked their lives by standing with Oswaldo Paya for freedom. But the Cuban Government refused to hold a referendum. Paya's fight for freedom made him a target repeatedly of the Communist Party in Cuba. They harassed him, tried to intimidate him, and arrested him numerous times. And in 2012, they killed him. Paya's friend and the driver of the car said that when he awoke after the crash, he was confronted at the hospital by a government operative, and the hospital was flooded with uniformed military personnel. Under extreme duress, drugged, and threatened with death by government officials, he signed a confession that directly contradicted what he knew to be true--that the communist regime had just murdered Oswaldo Paya. I have met multiple times with Oswaldo Paya's daughter, Rosa Maria, who is an incredible, courageous, powerful leader in her own right, and we have discussed ways we can continue her father's fight for justice in Cuba. One of the things I have done is I have filed legislation to rename the street in front of the Cuban Embassy in Washington, DC, ``Oswaldo Paya Way.'' Renaming the street in front of the Cuban Embassy would send a powerful message to the communist regime. During the Cold War, President Reagan followed this very same strategy. He renamed the street in front of the Soviet Embassy ``Sakharov Plaza'' after the famed human rights dissident in the Soviet Union. It was part of a broader strategy to call out the evil regime. My strategy is the same here. Some people may think a street name is not that big a deal, but think about it for a moment. If you change the street name, it means anyone who wants to write to the Cuban Embassy will have to write Oswaldo Paya's name. If you need to go there, you will have to look up the address and see the same. Tyranny exists in darkness. Oppressive regimes are terrified by dissidents. Members of the Cuban Government who deal with the Embassy will have to acknowledge that Paya existed and that this hero who was wrongfully murdered was real. They will have to say his name. There is power in saying his name. I want to tell you another story that illustrates just how powerful this renaming strategy can be. Several years ago, I introduced legislation to rename the street in front of the Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC, ``Liu Xiaobo Plaza.'' Liu Xiaobo was a Noble Peace laureate and democracy activist in China who was wrongfully imprisoned there. My bill ended up passing the U.S. Senate 100 to nothing. Every Senator, Republican and Democrat, agreed with that bill. Sadly, even though it was a Democrat Senate at the time, the Republican House failed to take up the bill, so it didn't pass into law. But here is an epilogue to that story. At the beginning of the Trump administration in 2017, I was having breakfast with Rex Tillerson, the new Secretary of State. We were at Foggy Bottom at the State Department. We were talking about China at one point, and he said he had just had a meeting with his counterpart, the Foreign Minister of China. He said the Foreign Minister came out and said the Chinese Communist Government has three top priorities in foreign policy, and Rex kind of shook his head. He said: Ted, it is the damnedest thing. One of their top three priorities is to prevent your bill to rename thestreet in front of their Embassy from passing. I will tell you what I told Rex that morning. At the time, Liu Xiaobo had passed away. He had never collected the over $1 million that he was entitled to for winning the Noble Peace Prize. But his widow, Liu Xia, was still in China. China would not let her go. I told Rex: You go back to China, and you tell them the following. If they release Liu Xia, if they let her go, I will stop pressing to pass this bill. But if they don't, I will continue pressing to pass it, and we will succeed. I have already passed it 100 to nothing in the U.S. Senate, and the next time, we are going to get it passed in the House as well and get it passed into law. Just a few weeks later, communist China released Liu Xia. She was able to receive the prize money for the Noble Peace Prize and escape the oppression of communist China. This story speaks volumes about the weakness of a tyrannical regime, just how vulnerable they are to sunshine, to truth, to transparency, to being called out. Renaming the street in front of the Cuban Embassy after Oswaldo Paya would shine a light and would highlight the truth about the communist regime in Cuba. It would be a powerful tool in bringing down the machinery of oppression there. We saw not long ago thousands of Cubans taking to the street, fighting for liberty. The Cuban people should know the American people stand with them against tyranny and against the communist oppression, the poverty, the misery, the death under which they live every day, and it would be a powerful tool to bringing down the machinery of oppression in Cuba in the nonviolent way that Oswaldo Paya so powerfully championed. This Congress, I am very hopeful that my bill to rename the street in front of the Cuban Embassy ``Oswaldo Paya Way'' will be passed by both Chambers. Oswaldo Paya fought for a free Cuba--Cuba libre--built on human decency, on human rights, where citizens are heard, not murdered by their government. Let's come together, Democrats and Republicans, to honor Oswaldo Paya. Let's come together and force the communist regime to say his name. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CRUZ | Senate | CREC-2023-03-01-pt1-PgS613 | null | 5,922 |
formal | religious liberty | null | homophobic | Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to honor the memory of Oswaldo Paya, who would have celebrated his 71st birthday this week. His memory and his story have been an inspiration to dissidents across the world, and I would like to briefly retell it here today. Oswaldo Paya was a dissident and a democracy activist in Cuba with unrelenting passion and dedication. He was someone who stood up against the Castro regime at very direct risk to his own life. He had incredible courage. He spoke up for human rights. He spoke up for free speech. He spoke up for democracy. Eleven years ago, Oswaldo Paya was murdered. On July 22, 2012, Paya left his house with three other people to go visit friends. From the start of their journey, their car was followed. On the way, the Cuban police drove Paya's car off the road and killed him. The crash is widely believed to have been orchestrated by the Castro regime. Paya had long been a thorn in the side of the Castros, even from a young age. He was the only person at his school who had refused to join the Communist Youth. As a teenager, he publicly opposed the communist crackdown on protesters in Czechoslovakia who were fighting for freedom, and he was punished with 3 years in prison. Paya went on to found the Varela Project, which sought a referendum on Cuba's communist system. Their demands were simple: democratic government, religious liberty, freedom of expression, and the freedom to start businesses. Paya managed to get 11,000 signatures to petition the government to hold a referendum, and eventually 20,000 people supported the referendum. Twenty thousand people risked their lives by standing with Oswaldo Paya for freedom. But the Cuban Government refused to hold a referendum. Paya's fight for freedom made him a target repeatedly of the Communist Party in Cuba. They harassed him, tried to intimidate him, and arrested him numerous times. And in 2012, they killed him. Paya's friend and the driver of the car said that when he awoke after the crash, he was confronted at the hospital by a government operative, and the hospital was flooded with uniformed military personnel. Under extreme duress, drugged, and threatened with death by government officials, he signed a confession that directly contradicted what he knew to be true--that the communist regime had just murdered Oswaldo Paya. I have met multiple times with Oswaldo Paya's daughter, Rosa Maria, who is an incredible, courageous, powerful leader in her own right, and we have discussed ways we can continue her father's fight for justice in Cuba. One of the things I have done is I have filed legislation to rename the street in front of the Cuban Embassy in Washington, DC, ``Oswaldo Paya Way.'' Renaming the street in front of the Cuban Embassy would send a powerful message to the communist regime. During the Cold War, President Reagan followed this very same strategy. He renamed the street in front of the Soviet Embassy ``Sakharov Plaza'' after the famed human rights dissident in the Soviet Union. It was part of a broader strategy to call out the evil regime. My strategy is the same here. Some people may think a street name is not that big a deal, but think about it for a moment. If you change the street name, it means anyone who wants to write to the Cuban Embassy will have to write Oswaldo Paya's name. If you need to go there, you will have to look up the address and see the same. Tyranny exists in darkness. Oppressive regimes are terrified by dissidents. Members of the Cuban Government who deal with the Embassy will have to acknowledge that Paya existed and that this hero who was wrongfully murdered was real. They will have to say his name. There is power in saying his name. I want to tell you another story that illustrates just how powerful this renaming strategy can be. Several years ago, I introduced legislation to rename the street in front of the Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC, ``Liu Xiaobo Plaza.'' Liu Xiaobo was a Noble Peace laureate and democracy activist in China who was wrongfully imprisoned there. My bill ended up passing the U.S. Senate 100 to nothing. Every Senator, Republican and Democrat, agreed with that bill. Sadly, even though it was a Democrat Senate at the time, the Republican House failed to take up the bill, so it didn't pass into law. But here is an epilogue to that story. At the beginning of the Trump administration in 2017, I was having breakfast with Rex Tillerson, the new Secretary of State. We were at Foggy Bottom at the State Department. We were talking about China at one point, and he said he had just had a meeting with his counterpart, the Foreign Minister of China. He said the Foreign Minister came out and said the Chinese Communist Government has three top priorities in foreign policy, and Rex kind of shook his head. He said: Ted, it is the damnedest thing. One of their top three priorities is to prevent your bill to rename thestreet in front of their Embassy from passing. I will tell you what I told Rex that morning. At the time, Liu Xiaobo had passed away. He had never collected the over $1 million that he was entitled to for winning the Noble Peace Prize. But his widow, Liu Xia, was still in China. China would not let her go. I told Rex: You go back to China, and you tell them the following. If they release Liu Xia, if they let her go, I will stop pressing to pass this bill. But if they don't, I will continue pressing to pass it, and we will succeed. I have already passed it 100 to nothing in the U.S. Senate, and the next time, we are going to get it passed in the House as well and get it passed into law. Just a few weeks later, communist China released Liu Xia. She was able to receive the prize money for the Noble Peace Prize and escape the oppression of communist China. This story speaks volumes about the weakness of a tyrannical regime, just how vulnerable they are to sunshine, to truth, to transparency, to being called out. Renaming the street in front of the Cuban Embassy after Oswaldo Paya would shine a light and would highlight the truth about the communist regime in Cuba. It would be a powerful tool in bringing down the machinery of oppression there. We saw not long ago thousands of Cubans taking to the street, fighting for liberty. The Cuban people should know the American people stand with them against tyranny and against the communist oppression, the poverty, the misery, the death under which they live every day, and it would be a powerful tool to bringing down the machinery of oppression in Cuba in the nonviolent way that Oswaldo Paya so powerfully championed. This Congress, I am very hopeful that my bill to rename the street in front of the Cuban Embassy ``Oswaldo Paya Way'' will be passed by both Chambers. Oswaldo Paya fought for a free Cuba--Cuba libre--built on human decency, on human rights, where citizens are heard, not murdered by their government. Let's come together, Democrats and Republicans, to honor Oswaldo Paya. Let's come together and force the communist regime to say his name. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CRUZ | Senate | CREC-2023-03-01-pt1-PgS613 | null | 5,923 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Democratic Caucus Lunch Mr. President, now on the President's visit to our caucus lunch this afternoon, later today, Senate Democrats will welcome President Biden to the Capitol for a special caucus lunch to talk about our agenda for the 118th Congress. I predict that today's conversation will reemphasize a couple of important points. Unlike the other party, Democrats are united. We have a great story to tell about our work over the last 2 years, and we are ready to keep working in a bipartisan way to make life better for the American people. If the last 2 years focused on getting our agenda passed into law, one of the focuses of our lunch will be on how the next 2 years will be about implementing that agenda. Legislation must and will continue, but implementation will also be a top priority. Democrats are making sure that Americans see our agenda--see our agenda in their own backyards, on their way to work, and when they balance their checkbooks. Americans will see our agenda as the roads and bridges and highways they use every day finally get the fixes that are so needed, and Americans will see our agenda inaction as manufacturing--good-paying manufacturing jobs, high-end jobs--returns to our shore, as new innovations get developed here at home. We will also talk with President Biden about one of the most important priorities that defines our party: building ladders to help people get into the middle class and helping people who are already in the middle class stay there. We will continue protecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid from the hard right. We will keep investing in infrastructure jobs and good-paying union jobs, and we will hold abusive corporations accountable for putting profits over people's safety. We are also going to make sure that, once people make it into the middle class, they have the tools to stay in the middle class. That was precisely the reasoning behind our work on IRA, on CHIPS and Science, on pushing for student debt relief and increasing Pell grants, and so much more. I expect we will also discuss how we will keep Americans safe and keep democracy alive in the 21st century. One year into Putin's violent assault on Ukraine, the support for Ukraine will hold firm, and that, praise God, has been very bipartisan. Leader McConnell and I are united in that regard. So we will focus on taking an all-of-above approach to outcompete President Xi and the Chinese Communist Party. CHIPS was an important step in that direction, but we cannot relent. The administration has already taken a few Executive actions that will increase our ability to bring jobs back here and prevent the Chinese from purloining our intellectual property. But we certainly cannot rest on our laurels. Finally, and very importantly, we are going to talk about how Democrats will preserve our unity in the months ahead. The story here in Congress over the first few months of 2023 has been one of contrasts. Democrats are united on helping average Americans, while Republicans are divided, paralyzed by chaos, and so many of them doing the bidding of the ultrarich and the very well connected and powerful. Republicans like to talk about standing up for average folks and fighting ``wokeism''--whatever that means--but look at what they have actually done this year. They have given cover to wealthy tax cheats, escalated their war on women, even tried to push a national sales tax that would raise taxes significantly--up to 30 percent--for average families. How the heck is an average family going to pay 30 percent more for everything they buy? What planet are these folks on? Nowhere else is the contrast between Democrats and Republicans more glaring than when it comes to raising the debt ceiling. President Biden and Senate and House Democrats have been clear from the very beginning that we are united on what our plan is: Both sides must come together and raise the debt ceiling without engaging in hostage-taking, brinksmanship, or political blackmail. Speaker McCarthy, however, is unable to unite his conference or explain what exactly the Republican plan is. The hard right is demanding that we agree to spending cuts in exchange for their votes. But to this day, there is no consensus and no clarity about what cuts Republicans want. Speaker McCarthy, it is March 2. Where is your plan? It is March 2, Speaker McCarthy. You have been talking about a plan for a while. Where is it? Where is your plan? You say Social Security and Medicare is off the table. But until the American people see a plan, they cannot just take the Speaker at his word that Social Security and Medicare will be safe, because so many on his right flank--so many mainstream Republican Members even--have long pushed to have these programs changed. And there is more that Americans have to worry about. What is the Republican plan on Medicaid or funding the police, on Pell grants, on defense, on food for kids? Will all of these things get cut from their plan? Again, this goes back to the central problem with the Republican House majority. It will be exceedingly difficult and, in all likelihood, impossible for them to unite around a plan that they can pass with their 220-some-odd votes and that the American people will accept and like. This contrast is going to keep growing and growing in the months ahead. During today's lunch, we will talk with the President about how we can make sure Americans see and understand the contrast. I thank President Biden for his time, and I very much look forward to having him here at our Capitol. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-02-pt1-PgS615-9 | null | 5,924 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Tribute to Jenni Katzman Madam President, before I yield the floor, just a note of thanks to Jenni Katzman, who has been in our office and her last day in the Senate, sadly, is today. She served our office as chief of domestic policy and general counsel for the past 3 years, and she is moving on, always giving public service a good name. It has been a pleasure to work with her to assist the people of Oregon and our country. During the time she has been with us, she assisted with the confirmation of stellar judges from my State, written legislation to make our judicial system more fair, and provided very valuable counsel to me and my staff. I want to close, as we wrap up what is going to be an effort on my part to provide regular updates on the consequences of what will happen if this judge in Texas puts in place a nationwide ban--nationwide, every single State. I hope I don't have to come to the floor again and again and again. But I think it is important that people understand, as I have learned in the last couple of weeks, what the human consequences are of going backward here, after the Court said that there wouldn't be a nationwide ban, after they said it repeatedly that it is going to go to the States. It would be a huge mistake for America. I want to also note that the President of the Senate has been the leader of this cause for many, many years. I admire her greatly for that leadership. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-02-pt1-PgS631 | null | 5,925 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, today, the Senate voted to confirm Colleen Lawless to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in my hometown of Springfield. Born in Joliet, IL, Judge Lawless received her bachelor's degree from Illinois Wesleyan University and her J.D. from Northern Illinois University College of Law. After graduating from law school, Judge Lawless joined the Springfield, IL, firm Londrigan, Potter & Randle P.C., where she represented plaintiffs and defendants in State and Federal courts, including the court to which she has now been nominated. In this role, she handled matters ranging from employment discrimination to medical malpractice to family law and tried four cases to verdict before a jury. In 2019, the judges of Illinois' Seventh Judicial Circuit appointed Judge Lawless to serve as an associate circuit judge, and she is currently assigned to the domestic relations division. Since her appointment to the bench, Judge Lawless has presided over 125 domestic relations bench trials and many more proceedings implicating mental health commitments, small claims, evictions, and emergency protection orders. Notably, she has never been reversed or significantly criticized by a reviewing court. Judge Lawless received a rating of ``well qualified'' from the ABA and a bipartisan vote in committee. She was also highly recommended by a judicial screening committee that Senator Duckworth and I established to consider judicial candidates for the Central District of Illinois. Judge Lawless will fill the Springfield-based seat that has been occupied over the past decade by Judge Sue Myerscough. I want to thank Judge Myerscough for her outstanding service to the people of the central Illinois. She leaves big shoes to fill, but I am confident that Judge Lawless is more than up to the task. Given her significant trial experience and deep knowledge of the Central District, Senator Duckworth and I strongly support Judge Lawless. I was glad to see her confirmed. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.) | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-03-02-pt1-PgS632-6 | null | 5,926 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, today the Senate confirmed Judge Jonathan Grey to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Born in Poplarville, MS, Judge Grey attended Morehouse College and the Georgetown University Law Center before serving as a law clerk to both Judge Damon J. Keith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and Judge W. Louis Sands of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. He then began his career in private practice as an associate at Seyfarth Shaw, LLC, a role in which he focused on labor and employment matters in Federal, State, and local courts, as well as before administrative agencies. As an Assistant United States Attorney for both the Southern District of Ohio and the Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Grey briefed and argued dozens of dispositive and nondispositive motions and also led several substantial investigations in cases that spanned multiple States and countries. In 2021, Judge Grey was appointed to serve as a magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, where he has written opinions in approximately 40 cases. The American Bar Association rated Judge Grey as unanimously ``well qualified,'' and he enjoys the strong support of Senators Stabenow and Peters. Judge Grey's experience as both a litigator and a jurist in the Eastern District of Michigan demonstrates his deep knowledge of the district to which he has been nominated to serve, and he will make an outstanding addition to the Federal bench. I was glad to see him confirmed. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-03-02-pt1-PgS632-7 | null | 5,927 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Ms. ERNST. Madam President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I recognize an outstanding Iowa small business that exemplifies the American entrepreneurial spirit. This week it is my privilege to recognize PSC Distribution of Iowa City, IA, as the Senate Small Business of the Week for the week of February 27, 2023. The story behind the origin of PSC Distribution is one of hard work and knowing an opportunity when you see one. Jim Nesmith was born and raised in Jasper County in the early 1900s. Wanting to give back to his community, he became the State senator for Jasper County in the 1940s. During this time, he also became a salesman for A.Y. McDonald, a wholesale distributor of plumbing pumps and waterworks based in Des Moines. Both of these jobs exposed him to greater Iowa, outside of his native Jasper County. Jim recognized that there was a great opportunity for growth in Iowa City with the expansion of the University of Iowa, so he decided to take a chance and open his own wholesale plumbing distributorship on May 1, 1951. For the past 70 years, PSC Distribution has been supplying eastern Iowa residents and businesses with the materials they need to excel in the plumbing industry. Currently under the fourth generation of family ownership, cousins Tom Balmer and Jennie Wunderlich, along with her husband Ben Wunderlich, continue to grow and guide the company with innovation and excellence. In 2010, the PSC plumbing showroom expanded and rebranded into a luxury showroom named StudioH2O which emphasizes quality customer service and building a relationship of trust with each customer. Today, PSC Distribution prides itself as a family owned and operated wholesale plumbing business services offering everything from heating controls and systems, air conditioning, geothermal systems, to water heaters, plumbing fittings, pipes, valves, and kitchen sinks. PSC Distribution has always prioritized giving back to their community and employees. They actively support the Ronald McDonald House, the Iowa City Community School District Foundation, Table to Table, the Optimist Service Club, the Rotary Club, and are recognized as one of the original investors in Iowa City Area Development. Additionally, many of its employees have worked there for more than 20 years, with some working there for more than 40 years. Regardless of an employee's tenure at the company, whether it brief or long, PSC Distribution celebrates different work anniversaries by posting a tribute on social media to an employee they appreciate. They also take the time to honor veteran customers and employees with tribute posts thanking them for their service. Furthermore, PSC Distribution hosts community events in their showroom such as pampering nights for women in the industry and builders' and electricians' events to forge a strong community and inspire others to join the industry. Through never compromising their commitment to being trustworthy, customer-focused, and growth-oriented, PSC Distribution has been able to thrive for decades. It has won a number of awards throughout the years, including the Roots Award in 2011, which was awarded by the Iowa City Chamber of Commerce to highlight their role as an anchor business of the Iowa City area for over 60 years and for exemplifying the importance of successful relationships between small businesses and the communities they serve. They also won the National Single-branch ICP Distributor of the Year in 2012, awarded by International Comfort Products, a leading manufacturer of HVAC equipment. In 2022, Studio H2O was honored to be named the 2022 Showroom of the Year by Wholesaler Magazine, an industry magazine which reaches 100,000 professional engineers, distributors, and contractors. It gives me great joy to see this family business receive their rightful recognition from industry experts and from their community at large. I want to congratulate the entire team at PSC Distribution for their continued commitment to loyally serving the needs of Iowans. I look forward to seeing their continued growth and success in Iowa. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. ERNST | Senate | CREC-2023-03-02-pt1-PgS633-2 | null | 5,928 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-529. A letter from the Congressional Review Coordinator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Alignment of Canned Meat and Canned Product Requirements [Docket No.: APHIS-2020-0066] received February 24, 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-530. A letter from the Congressional Review Coordinator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Standards for Birds Not Bred for Use in Research Under the Animal Welfare Act [Docket No.: APHIS-2029-0068] (RIN: 0579- AE61) received February 24, 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-531. A letter from the Special Assistant to the Board, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Reserve System, transmitting the Board's final rule -- Regulation Implementing the Adjustable Interest Rate (LIBOR) Act [Regulation ZZ; Docket No.: R-1775] (RIN: 7100-AG34) received February 23, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-532. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor, transmitting the Department's Major final rule -- Annual Reporting and Disclosure (RIN: 1210-AB97) received February 28, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. EC-533. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor, transmitting the Department's Major final rule -- Annual Information Return/Reports (RIN: 1210-AB97) received February 28, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. EC-534. A letter from the Supervisory Workforce Analyst, Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Adverse Effect Wage Rate Methodology for the Temporary Employment of H-2A Nonimmigrants in Non-Range Occupations in the United States [DOL Docket No.: ETA-2021-0006] (RIN: 1205-AC05) received February 28, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. EC-535. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and Efficiency, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final determinations -- Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps [EERE-2019-BT-STD-0030] (RIN: 1904-AE40) received February 24, 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-536. 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 determination -- Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps [EERE-2019-BT-STD-0035] (RIN: 1904-AE66) received February 24, 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-537. A letter from the Associate Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule and guidance -- Enhanced Weapons, Firearms Background Checks, and Security Event Notifications [NRC-2011-0014; NRC-2011-0015; NRC-2011-0017; NRC-2011-0018] (RIN: 3150-AI49) received February 24, 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-538. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 25-13, ``Tipped Minimum Wage Increase Implementation Clarification Temporary Amendment Act of 2023'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 814); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-539. A letter from the Associate General Counsel for General Law, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting one (1) notification of a discontinuation of service in acting role, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105- 277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-540. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation GSAR); GSAR Clause Matrix Update [GSAR Case 2021-G502; Docket No.: 2022-0021; Sequence No.: 1] (RIN: 3090-AK70) received February 27, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-541. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); Clarify Commercial Products and Services Contract Terms and Conditions [GSAR Case 2020-G505; Docket No.: GSA- GSAR-2022-0018; Sequence No.: 1] (RIN: 3090-AK18) received February 27, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-542. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, General Services Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Federal Travel Regulation; Rental Car Policy Updates and Clarifications [FTR Case 2020- 301-1; Docket No.: GSA-FTR-2021-0017, Sequence No.: 2] (RIN: 3090-AK45) received February 27, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-543. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, General Services Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Federal Management Regulation; Physical Security [FMR Case 2018-102-2; Docket No.: 2020- 0009; Sequence No.: 2] (RIN: 3090-AJ94) received February 27, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-544. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, General Services Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); Order Level Material Clarifications [GSAR Case 2020-G537; Docket No.: 2022-0008; Sequence No.: 1] (RIN: 3090-AK32) received February 27, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-545. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting the Office's final rule -- General Schedule Locality Pay Areas (RIN: 3206-AO40) received February 24, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-546. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting the Office's final rule -- Enhancing Stability and Flexibility for the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP)-Abbreviated Underwriting, Applications for FLTCIP Coverage, and Technical Corrections (RIN: 3206-AO21) received February 24, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-547. A letter from the Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts for 2023 [Docket No.: FR-6375-F-01] received February 23, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-548. 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 Major final rule -- Reimbursement for Emergency Treatment (RIN: 2900-AQ08) received February 28, 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-549. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Interim Guidance Regarding Certain Insurance Related Issues for the Determination of Adjusted Financial Statement Income under Section 56A of the Internal Revenue Code [Notice 2023-20] received February 27, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. EC-550. A letter from the Branch Chief, Legal Processing Division, Publications and Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final regulation -- Electronic-Filing Requirements for Specified Returns and Other Documents [TD 9972] (RIN: 1545-BN36) received February 27, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. EC-551. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final regulations -- Single-Entity Treatment of Consolidated Groups for Specific Purposes [TD 9973] (RIN: 1545-BQ51) received February 27, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. EC-552. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Initial Guidance Establishing Qualifying Advanced Energy Project Credit Allocation Program Under Section 48C(e) [Notice 2023-18] received February 21, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. EC-553. A letter from the Branch Chief, Legal Processing Division, Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Third Six-year Remedial Amendment Cycle for Pre-approved Defined Benefit Plans: Issuance of Opinion Letters, Plan Adoption Deadline, and Opening of Determination Letter Program [Announcement 2023-6] received February 21, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. EC-554. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Initial Guidance Establishing Program to Allocate Environmental Justice Solar and Wind Capacity Limitation Under Section 48(e) [Notice 2023-17] received February 21, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-03-03-pt1-PgH1111-2 | null | 5,929 |
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-529. A letter from the Congressional Review Coordinator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Alignment of Canned Meat and Canned Product Requirements [Docket No.: APHIS-2020-0066] received February 24, 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-530. A letter from the Congressional Review Coordinator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Standards for Birds Not Bred for Use in Research Under the Animal Welfare Act [Docket No.: APHIS-2029-0068] (RIN: 0579- AE61) received February 24, 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-531. A letter from the Special Assistant to the Board, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Reserve System, transmitting the Board's final rule -- Regulation Implementing the Adjustable Interest Rate (LIBOR) Act [Regulation ZZ; Docket No.: R-1775] (RIN: 7100-AG34) received February 23, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-532. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor, transmitting the Department's Major final rule -- Annual Reporting and Disclosure (RIN: 1210-AB97) received February 28, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. EC-533. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor, transmitting the Department's Major final rule -- Annual Information Return/Reports (RIN: 1210-AB97) received February 28, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. EC-534. A letter from the Supervisory Workforce Analyst, Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Adverse Effect Wage Rate Methodology for the Temporary Employment of H-2A Nonimmigrants in Non-Range Occupations in the United States [DOL Docket No.: ETA-2021-0006] (RIN: 1205-AC05) received February 28, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. EC-535. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and Efficiency, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final determinations -- Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps [EERE-2019-BT-STD-0030] (RIN: 1904-AE40) received February 24, 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-536. 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 determination -- Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps [EERE-2019-BT-STD-0035] (RIN: 1904-AE66) received February 24, 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-537. A letter from the Associate Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule and guidance -- Enhanced Weapons, Firearms Background Checks, and Security Event Notifications [NRC-2011-0014; NRC-2011-0015; NRC-2011-0017; NRC-2011-0018] (RIN: 3150-AI49) received February 24, 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-538. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 25-13, ``Tipped Minimum Wage Increase Implementation Clarification Temporary Amendment Act of 2023'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 814); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-539. A letter from the Associate General Counsel for General Law, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting one (1) notification of a discontinuation of service in acting role, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105- 277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-540. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation GSAR); GSAR Clause Matrix Update [GSAR Case 2021-G502; Docket No.: 2022-0021; Sequence No.: 1] (RIN: 3090-AK70) received February 27, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-541. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); Clarify Commercial Products and Services Contract Terms and Conditions [GSAR Case 2020-G505; Docket No.: GSA- GSAR-2022-0018; Sequence No.: 1] (RIN: 3090-AK18) received February 27, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-542. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, General Services Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Federal Travel Regulation; Rental Car Policy Updates and Clarifications [FTR Case 2020- 301-1; Docket No.: GSA-FTR-2021-0017, Sequence No.: 2] (RIN: 3090-AK45) received February 27, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-543. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, General Services Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Federal Management Regulation; Physical Security [FMR Case 2018-102-2; Docket No.: 2020- 0009; Sequence No.: 2] (RIN: 3090-AJ94) received February 27, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-544. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, General Services Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); Order Level Material Clarifications [GSAR Case 2020-G537; Docket No.: 2022-0008; Sequence No.: 1] (RIN: 3090-AK32) received February 27, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-545. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting the Office's final rule -- General Schedule Locality Pay Areas (RIN: 3206-AO40) received February 24, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-546. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting the Office's final rule -- Enhancing Stability and Flexibility for the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP)-Abbreviated Underwriting, Applications for FLTCIP Coverage, and Technical Corrections (RIN: 3206-AO21) received February 24, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-547. A letter from the Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts for 2023 [Docket No.: FR-6375-F-01] received February 23, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-548. 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 Major final rule -- Reimbursement for Emergency Treatment (RIN: 2900-AQ08) received February 28, 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-549. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Interim Guidance Regarding Certain Insurance Related Issues for the Determination of Adjusted Financial Statement Income under Section 56A of the Internal Revenue Code [Notice 2023-20] received February 27, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. EC-550. A letter from the Branch Chief, Legal Processing Division, Publications and Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final regulation -- Electronic-Filing Requirements for Specified Returns and Other Documents [TD 9972] (RIN: 1545-BN36) received February 27, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. EC-551. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final regulations -- Single-Entity Treatment of Consolidated Groups for Specific Purposes [TD 9973] (RIN: 1545-BQ51) received February 27, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. EC-552. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Initial Guidance Establishing Qualifying Advanced Energy Project Credit Allocation Program Under Section 48C(e) [Notice 2023-18] received February 21, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. EC-553. A letter from the Branch Chief, Legal Processing Division, Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Third Six-year Remedial Amendment Cycle for Pre-approved Defined Benefit Plans: Issuance of Opinion Letters, Plan Adoption Deadline, and Opening of Determination Letter Program [Announcement 2023-6] received February 21, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. EC-554. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Initial Guidance Establishing Program to Allocate Environmental Justice Solar and Wind Capacity Limitation Under Section 48(e) [Notice 2023-17] received February 21, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-03-03-pt1-PgH1111-2 | null | 5,930 |
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-2023-03-03-pt1-PgH1114 | null | 5,931 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | The Middle East Now, Madam President, on an entirely different matter, a number of Senate Republican colleagues and I recently met with America's allies and partners across Europe and the Middle East. I spoke last week about our message to NATO and our friends in Europe. How the West confronts Russia's invasion of Ukraine today will shape the future with respect to, not just Russia, but China and Iran as well. Of course, these same adversaries are aggressively working to counter American influence in the Middle East. We met with top leaders in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE; and a great deal of what we saw was very encouraging. America has many friends in the Middle East. The Abraham Accords are uniting Arabs and Israelis to a degree that would have been literally unthinkable 15 or 20 years ago--and uniting them around shared interests with our own. Our partners want even stronger relations with the United States, but the problem is that, just like in Europe, our friends are questioning America's reliability and America's commitment. Our partners are not asking us to take care of their security for them. They want a confident and engaged America to coordinate more closely with them and help them upgrade their own defenses. If America disengages from the Middle East, some of our partners will, of course, turn to other major powers. A world in which China and Russia exert more influence in this pivotal region is not good for America. Yet too often, this administration has turned to the Obama-era playbook of flirting with our adversaries rather siding with our friends. President Biden began his administration trying to dismantle the successful maximum pressure campaign on Iran that he inherited. Less than 2 weeks into the job, he made Iran's day by removing the official terrorist designation of the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen. Iran is the world's most active state sponsor of terror. It was continuing its shameless years-long targeting of America's partners and our own U.S. personnel in the region. But right from the jump, President Biden took pressure off Tehran. Then the Biden administration tried desperately to reassemble the wreckage of the failed Obama-era Iran deal, which was, of course, all carrots and no sticks. Then the President ignored the concerns of both our commanders and partners in ordering the disastrous retreat from Afghanistan. At crucial moments, President Biden has made decisions that have undermined confidence in America. For example, when an Iran-sponsored attack struck the capital of the UAE, it didn't occur to the Biden administration to send anybody to stand in solidarity with our friends. Our friends didn't expect an American military response, but they certainly deserved at least a phone call. Our friends from Saudi Arabia to Qatar to the UAE have made major investments in their military facilities to facilitate America's military presence and access, which contributes to deterrence of common adversaries. The botched retreat from Afghanistan has made these basing agreements even more vital, if we wish to maintain any remotely effective way to conduct counterterrorism in the region. And the Abraham Accords pointed to a new and enormously beneficial chapter for American involvement in the Middle East where we could stay engaged and keep promoting our interests in the region, without shouldering an outsized burden. But on President Biden's watch, we have squandered much of the momentum. Democrats have sought to keep shrinking our influence and credibility in the Middle East. They have objected to arms transfers that would let our friends better prepare to defend themselves against common enemies. So, look, protecting America and our interests takes power, it takes presence, and, most importantly, it takes partners. It is true in Europe. It is true in the Indo-Pacific. And it is true in the Middle East. Power, presence, and partners. But President Biden's attempts to underfund our Armed Forces with inadequate budgets would reduce our power. His clumsy attempts to cut and run from the Middle East have reduced our presence, and letting key friendships languish erodes our partnerships. It is a recipe--a recipe for less American influence, less national security, and a vacuum--a vacuum--that Russia and China would, of course, be delighted to fill. The Biden administration needs to get more serious toward Iran. The President says he won't allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. Does anyone believe that? Iran inches closer and closer to a bomb while the administration dithers. After 2 years of squandered leverage, the administration finally admits their foolish negotiations with Iran are ``on life support''--on life support. Well, it is past time to pull the plug. We need to rally American allies in a campaign of coordinated sanctions. Maximum pressure on Tehran, for real. We need to closely coordinate with our Middle East friends, not keep them in the dark. We need to help Israel acquire the capabilities it needs to put Iran's nuclear program at credible risk. We need to clear roadblocks that prevent our partners from acquiring the superior American weapons and technologies that they need to defend themselves. That means reforming our broken, bureaucratic, and convoluted foreign military sales process. Right now, it takes our partners an average of 18 months--listen to this--18 months just to put American weapons under contract. Our friends are literally trying to buy American, but we are making it more difficult. We need to streamline the process and ensure we do not drive our friends to buy weapons faster, cheaper, and easier from the Chinese. And the next time Iran's proxies attack American outposts in Syria or Iraq, we need to hit back hard and restore the deterrence that has eroded. So, Madam President, some people seem to have a mistaken impression that America can project more strength in one region by protecting weakness in other regions. The notion is that an America in retreat from Europe and/or the Middle East will somehow--somehow--magically have a stronger hand to play in Asia. That is not the way the world works. If America were to roll over and let Putin eat our strategic lunch in Europe, if we were to abandon our friends in the Middle East and let China and Russia strategically dominate this important region, none of this--none of it--would put America in a stronger position to assemble and lead the international effort that it will take to confront the long-term expansion of China and others. It would only weaken us. America has strong friends who want to continue to take our side over China's and Russia's. The administration needs to stop making it harder for them and start making it easier. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-06-pt1-PgS643-9 | null | 5,932 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Prescription Drug Costs Madam President, last week, pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly announced that it was going to lower the price of its insulin product. It is called Humalog. They are going to lower it dramatically by 70 percent and cap the out-of-pocket costs for insulin at $35 a month. After two decades of price gouging, this is a major relief for more than 7 million patients--more than 200,000 living in my State of Illinois--who depend on insulin every day to stay alive. But, despite the importance of this announcement, I won't be sending thank-you cards to the executives of this pharmaceutical company. You see, it was a century ago--100 years ago--when basic forms of insulin were discovered. The Nobel Prize-winning researchers who pioneered that discovery surrendered the patent rights--their property rights--in this new discovery for $1. Why? To prevent profiteering on this lifesaving medication. Now fast-forward almost 100 years to 1996. Eli Lilly introduces its insulin drug Humalog. They set the price of a vial of this insulin at $21. It made sense, as it only cost a few dollars to manufacture. But in the years since 1996, Eli Lilly prioritized profits over patients. The same vial of insulin that Eli Lilly first sold for $21 was now being sold for $300. Eli Lilly raised the price more than 30 separate times. What happened to the same drug, made by the same company, sold in Canada? It was only $40. But it was $300 in the United States. Is it any wonder that Eli Lilly generated more than $22 billion in revenue from insulin alone in 2014 and 2018? Let me repeat that. There was $22 billion in revenue during that 4-year period. Let's be clear. During the same time, Eli Lilly spent $1.5 billion on sales and marketing for insulin. Try to turn on the television set and get away with not seeing a pharmaceutical commercial from this company and so many others. Eli Lilly spent four times more than it spent on research for marketing this product and others. The company's profit-taking on this life-or-death drug has had deadly consequences. When the price went up to $300 a month, many people just couldn't afford it. More than 1 million Americans report having to ration or cut back doses of insulin--an extremely dangerous gamble. I received a letter from one of my constituents from Palos Park, who faced that. His name is Phil. He is 73 years old. Phil told me he has had to skip insulin injections because of the cost. He wrote that he was ``anxiously awaiting lower prescription prices.'' Well, there is good news for Phil and a lot of other Americans. You don't have to wait any longer. Last year, the Democrats lowered the cost of prescription drugs. Why didn't I say that the Senate lowered the cost? Because not a single Republican would vote for it--not one. We enacted a new penalty to stop Pharma's outrageous price hikes. We enabled Medicare to finally negotiate lower prices. We also made vaccines, like the shingles vaccine, which costs nearly $400 a course, entirely free for seniors under Medicare. We have said that no senior on Medicare will pay more than $2,000 out-of-pocket for medications in a year. Finally, we capped the price of insulin at $35 a month. All of these measures were part of the Inflation Reduction Act, which President Biden signed into law and Republican Members of the House are now saying they want to repeal in its entirety. Clearly, our legislation put Big Pharma on notice. It let them know their days of price gouging are numbered. We are not finished. There are now two very different visions of healthcare in America: the Democratic vision and the Republican vision. Instead of voting to cap insulin prices, Republicans blocked our proposal that would have applied the $35 premium to all Americans and not just senior citizens. We needed 10 Republican votes on the floor. We got 7. And get this. Now many Republicans are talking about repealing the whole law and raising drug prices--exactly what America does not need. As long as we are in charge in the Senate and have a President in the White House, we won't let it happen. In fact, we want to work with Republicans, if they are willing, to do more. Let's extend the $35 insulin cap to all other diabetic patients in America. Is that a radical idea? Senator Warnock of Georgia has a bill to do this. The question: Are the Republicans willing to join us? That is what it takes to pass it. While we are at it, let's put an end to Pharma's scheme to unjustifiably extend monopolies and harm patients' access to drugs. Last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair, reported out five bipartisan bills to address patent abuse and other tactics that prevent generic drugs from coming on the market, keeping prices high for American families. The full Senate should take up and pass these bills, and we should pass the bill that I have introduced with the Republican from Iowa, Senator Grassley, to address the outrageous direct-to-consumer drug ads that we all see on television. We all see them. On average, every American who watches TV is going to see nine drug ads every single day. How many countries allow the advertising of drugs on television? Two, the United States of America and New Zealand. Go figure. Pharma spent $6 billion a year flooding the airwaves so that the average American sees all of those ads that promote the most expensive drugs in the world. Pharma thinks, if they bombard you enough with ads so that you finally get to the point you might be able to spell Xarelto, you will insist to your doctor that that is the blood thinner you want even though there may be less expensive alternatives that are just as effective. Well, Senator Grassley and I have a radical idea. If they can put all of those disclaimers on those ads and give you all the information and say things that sound nonsensical on their face--if you are allergic to this drug, don't take this drug--how do I know I am allergic? Well, if you put all of that on there, they ought to be able to put for 5 seconds on every ad the cost of the drug--the cost of the drug. You would be amazed. Some of these drugs cost $9,000 and $10,000 a month, and they are peddling them on the air like they are just pretty common, pretty affordable. They are not. If they are advertising a drug and rattling off side effects, they should disclose the price up front. It is a basic step toward transparency for patients. Even former President Trump agreed with us on this one. He supported our efforts. I am glad we capped the price of insulin, but there is a lot more to do. I hope it will be bipartisan. If it isn't bipartisan, it is going nowhere. I hope the Republicans join us as people across America celebrate the affordability of prescription drugs for Medicare recipients. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-06-pt1-PgS645-2 | null | 5,933 |
formal | property rights | null | racist | Prescription Drug Costs Madam President, last week, pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly announced that it was going to lower the price of its insulin product. It is called Humalog. They are going to lower it dramatically by 70 percent and cap the out-of-pocket costs for insulin at $35 a month. After two decades of price gouging, this is a major relief for more than 7 million patients--more than 200,000 living in my State of Illinois--who depend on insulin every day to stay alive. But, despite the importance of this announcement, I won't be sending thank-you cards to the executives of this pharmaceutical company. You see, it was a century ago--100 years ago--when basic forms of insulin were discovered. The Nobel Prize-winning researchers who pioneered that discovery surrendered the patent rights--their property rights--in this new discovery for $1. Why? To prevent profiteering on this lifesaving medication. Now fast-forward almost 100 years to 1996. Eli Lilly introduces its insulin drug Humalog. They set the price of a vial of this insulin at $21. It made sense, as it only cost a few dollars to manufacture. But in the years since 1996, Eli Lilly prioritized profits over patients. The same vial of insulin that Eli Lilly first sold for $21 was now being sold for $300. Eli Lilly raised the price more than 30 separate times. What happened to the same drug, made by the same company, sold in Canada? It was only $40. But it was $300 in the United States. Is it any wonder that Eli Lilly generated more than $22 billion in revenue from insulin alone in 2014 and 2018? Let me repeat that. There was $22 billion in revenue during that 4-year period. Let's be clear. During the same time, Eli Lilly spent $1.5 billion on sales and marketing for insulin. Try to turn on the television set and get away with not seeing a pharmaceutical commercial from this company and so many others. Eli Lilly spent four times more than it spent on research for marketing this product and others. The company's profit-taking on this life-or-death drug has had deadly consequences. When the price went up to $300 a month, many people just couldn't afford it. More than 1 million Americans report having to ration or cut back doses of insulin--an extremely dangerous gamble. I received a letter from one of my constituents from Palos Park, who faced that. His name is Phil. He is 73 years old. Phil told me he has had to skip insulin injections because of the cost. He wrote that he was ``anxiously awaiting lower prescription prices.'' Well, there is good news for Phil and a lot of other Americans. You don't have to wait any longer. Last year, the Democrats lowered the cost of prescription drugs. Why didn't I say that the Senate lowered the cost? Because not a single Republican would vote for it--not one. We enacted a new penalty to stop Pharma's outrageous price hikes. We enabled Medicare to finally negotiate lower prices. We also made vaccines, like the shingles vaccine, which costs nearly $400 a course, entirely free for seniors under Medicare. We have said that no senior on Medicare will pay more than $2,000 out-of-pocket for medications in a year. Finally, we capped the price of insulin at $35 a month. All of these measures were part of the Inflation Reduction Act, which President Biden signed into law and Republican Members of the House are now saying they want to repeal in its entirety. Clearly, our legislation put Big Pharma on notice. It let them know their days of price gouging are numbered. We are not finished. There are now two very different visions of healthcare in America: the Democratic vision and the Republican vision. Instead of voting to cap insulin prices, Republicans blocked our proposal that would have applied the $35 premium to all Americans and not just senior citizens. We needed 10 Republican votes on the floor. We got 7. And get this. Now many Republicans are talking about repealing the whole law and raising drug prices--exactly what America does not need. As long as we are in charge in the Senate and have a President in the White House, we won't let it happen. In fact, we want to work with Republicans, if they are willing, to do more. Let's extend the $35 insulin cap to all other diabetic patients in America. Is that a radical idea? Senator Warnock of Georgia has a bill to do this. The question: Are the Republicans willing to join us? That is what it takes to pass it. While we are at it, let's put an end to Pharma's scheme to unjustifiably extend monopolies and harm patients' access to drugs. Last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair, reported out five bipartisan bills to address patent abuse and other tactics that prevent generic drugs from coming on the market, keeping prices high for American families. The full Senate should take up and pass these bills, and we should pass the bill that I have introduced with the Republican from Iowa, Senator Grassley, to address the outrageous direct-to-consumer drug ads that we all see on television. We all see them. On average, every American who watches TV is going to see nine drug ads every single day. How many countries allow the advertising of drugs on television? Two, the United States of America and New Zealand. Go figure. Pharma spent $6 billion a year flooding the airwaves so that the average American sees all of those ads that promote the most expensive drugs in the world. Pharma thinks, if they bombard you enough with ads so that you finally get to the point you might be able to spell Xarelto, you will insist to your doctor that that is the blood thinner you want even though there may be less expensive alternatives that are just as effective. Well, Senator Grassley and I have a radical idea. If they can put all of those disclaimers on those ads and give you all the information and say things that sound nonsensical on their face--if you are allergic to this drug, don't take this drug--how do I know I am allergic? Well, if you put all of that on there, they ought to be able to put for 5 seconds on every ad the cost of the drug--the cost of the drug. You would be amazed. Some of these drugs cost $9,000 and $10,000 a month, and they are peddling them on the air like they are just pretty common, pretty affordable. They are not. If they are advertising a drug and rattling off side effects, they should disclose the price up front. It is a basic step toward transparency for patients. Even former President Trump agreed with us on this one. He supported our efforts. I am glad we capped the price of insulin, but there is a lot more to do. I hope it will be bipartisan. If it isn't bipartisan, it is going nowhere. I hope the Republicans join us as people across America celebrate the affordability of prescription drugs for Medicare recipients. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-06-pt1-PgS645-2 | null | 5,934 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Honoring Officer Andres Vasquez-Lasso Madam President, on a separate subject matter, the city of Chicago, which I represent, is a city in mourning today. Last Thursday, Chicago police officer Andres Vasquez-Lasso was killed while responding to a domestic violence 911 call that ended in a chase and an exchange of gunfire with the suspect. Officer Vasquez-Lasso was 32 years old. He had been on the police force for 5 years. He is married. The man accused of killing him is 18 years old. Officer Vasquez-Lasso had chased this man a short distance on foot when the man reportedly turned on him, pointed a gun at him, and killed him. That chase ended on the playground of an elementary school in the city of Chicago where neighborhood kids were playing. As the bullets flew, the children took cover under slides and other playground equipment. Officer Vasquez-Lasso was shot three times--in the arm, leg, and head. He was the first Chicago police officer killed in the line of duty since Officer Ella French was murdered 18 months ago during a traffic stop. They had a memorial service for Officer French. My wife and I went to it. It was at St. Rita High School in the Beverly section of Chicago. I have never seen a larger outpouring of men and women in uniform come and pay tribute to this officer who was killed in a traffic stop. I was there with my wife, and we had a personal feeling about the occasion once we went inside, saw her family, and heard more about her life. I got to know her mom. And when the time came, we picked a program to help police across the United States, and we are working to name it after her in her honor for serving not only the city of Chicago but the country in protecting us. Sadly, here we are again. Officer Vasquez-Lasso just didn't protect the Southwest Side neighborhood where he served. He actually lived there. He and his wife had bought a home only 2 and a half miles from where he was killed about a year and a half ago. And I want to say clearly for the record something that needs to be said: Officer Vasquez-Lasso was an immigrant to this country. He came here from Colombia. He became a citizen and became a police officer, and he gave his life for the people who live in this country. On this Wednesday night, police officers, other first responders, and community members lined the streets to salute the ambulance carrying his body as it drove slowly from the hospital where he died to the county medical examiner's office. On Thursday, black bunting draped the entrance to the 8th district headquarters where Officer Vasquez-Lasso was assigned. Several vigils have been held around the city of Chicago since his death. The largest was a candlelight prayer vigil Thursday evening in Hale Park, attended by the officer's wife and mother. Hundreds of police officers, community members, and friends came out to pay their respects. A friend at the prayer vigil recalled that Officer Vasquez-Lasso was ``always a proper man.'' A fellow officer said, ``He was always smiling.'' Today, a memorial stands on the block where he was shot down. People drop off flowers and notes and other tributes. A rosary hangs on the fence. Illinois Governor J.P. Pritzker has ordered all flags in our State to fly at half-staff until Officer Vasquez-Lasso is laid to rest on Thursday. These are especially difficult times to be a member of law enforcement. A growing arsenal of high-powered guns in the hands of criminals and domestic abusers makes policing more dangerous than it has ever been. Domestic violence calls are always fraught with danger for police, victims, and innocent people standing by. At the suspect's bail hearing, Judge Mary Marubio noted that danger when she said: This case, from start to finish, it begins in violence and it ends in violence. The director of a local domestic violence prevention organization said, ``Your heart breaks because it was all so preventable.'' Madam President, for the sake of law enforcement officers who protect our communities and the victims of violence, we must do more to break the cycle of violence that kills far too many and leaves many more scarred. We must--must--do more to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who flatly should not have them. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that Congress passed last year in the wake of the horrific Uvalde school shooting made important progress, but more is needed to protect our communities and our law enforcement officers. In closing, I want to offer my condolences to Officer Vasquez-Lasso's family, especially his wife Milena Estepa, his mother Rocio Lasso, his sister, and niece, as well as his fellow officers in the Chicago Police Department, and his many, many friends. Officer Vasquez-Lasso gave his life protecting his community. He was protecting the children on that playground and the families living in the community that he personally called home. We join the city of Chicago in saluting his courage and mourning his loss. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-06-pt1-PgS645 | null | 5,935 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Freedom to Vote Act Madam President, when I was a college student in 1965--there, I have given away my age--there was this discussion one night about getting in the car here, at Georgetown University in Washington, and having three or four of us drive down to Selma, AL, to participate in the march. Well, things intervened, like work schedules and classes, and we didn't do it, and I have regretted it ever since. I wasn't there for the March from Selma, which was commemorated just this past weekend with President Biden going to Selma, but I did get to the city of Selma, AL, on a fateful morning. Congressman John Lewis, whom I served with in the House of Representatives--one of the real civil rights heroes of my generation--took a group of us down to Selma, AL. Part of the trip was to march over the Edmund Pettus Bridge, which he had done and had almost lost his life in the process. At the last minute, I had to go back to Illinois, and I had to cancel and catch an early morning plane to take the trip back home. I told John Lewis: Maybe, next time, I will get a chance to do it. He said: There may not be a next time. So let's you and I go over there. We got up at 6 a.m. and drove over to Selma, AL. In the early morning fog, I walked across the Edmund Pettus Bridge with John Lewis by my side. He pointed out where he was standing when they beat him down with a nightstick and almost killed him. They fractured his skull. I have thought about that ever since. When I think of Selma, AL, I think of John surviving that and the amazing courage which he showed. It sometimes escapes us as to why that march was taking place. It sounds like a bunch of people who just wanted to get public attention. There was a lot more to the story. There is a woman who publishes a column almost every single day--free for those who want to read it. Her name is Heather Cox Richardson. I have come to know her a little bit. She visited our Senate Democratic caucus just a few weeks ago. She published a column on March 5, Sunday, which spoke about Selma, AL, and what was behind that march. It was all about registering African Americans to vote in the State of Alabama. ``In the 1960s,'' she wrote, ``despite the fact that Black Americans outnumbered white Americans among the 29,500 people who lived in Selma, Alabama, the city's voting rolls were 99% white. So, in 1963, local Black organizers launched a voter registration drive.'' `` . . . in neighboring Mississippi, Ku Klux Klan members worked with local law enforcement officers to murder three voting rights organizers and dispose of their bodies.'' ``To try to hold back the white supremacists, Congress''--and the Senate and the House--``passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, designed in part to make it possible for Black Americans to register to vote. In Selma, a judge stopped voter registration meetings by prohibiting public gatherings of more than two people.'' To call attention to the crisis in their city, they invited Dr. Martin Luther King to come to Selma. ``King and other prominent Black leaders arrived in January 1965, and for seven weeks, Black residents made a new push to register to vote.'' The county sheriff in the Selma area, James Clark, ``arrested almost 2,000 of them on a variety of charges, including contempt of court and parading without a permit. A federal court ordered Clark not to interfere with orderly registration.'' There were some heroic Federal judges who risked their lives and reputations, and one of them was Frank Johnson. John Lewis told me about him as we walked over the Pettus Bridge. But ``a federal court ordered Clark not to interfere with orderly registration, so he forced Black applicants to stand in line for hours'' and subjected them to a ``literacy'' test before they were allowed to register to vote. Not one single person passed. ``Then, on February 18, white police officers, including local police, sheriff's deputies, and Alabama state troopers, beat and shot an unarmed man, 26-year-old Jimmie Lee Jackson, who was marching for voting rights in Marion, Alabama,'' about 25 miles from Selma. ``Jackson had run into a restaurant for shelter along with his mother when the police started rioting.'' But they chased him and shot him and killed him at a restaurant kitchen. He died 8 days later on February 26. ``Black leaders in Selma decided to defuse the community's anger by planning a long march--54 miles--from Selma to the state capitol at Montgomery.'' ``On March 7, 1965, the marchers set out. As they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, state troopers and other law enforcement officers met the unarmed marchers with billy clubs, bullwhips, and tear gas.'' They fractured the skull of John Lewis and beat Amelia Boynton unconscious. ``A newspaper photograph of the 54-year-old Boynton, seemingly dead in the arms of another marcher, illustrated the depravity of those determined to stop Black voting.'' I tell that story about Bloody Sunday because, very often, people don't hear the whole story. It was just a march. What was going on? Why did they do all that? It involved the right to vote--the right to vote in America. Is there anything more fundamental? Is there anything more debated at this point? The Big Lie of the previous President about the results of the last election I hope has been debunked for most Americans who are open to the facts. But we still fight to make sure that States do not restrict the right to vote. And too many still do. Why do we make it so hard for residents of America to legally vote? It should be the easiest thing in the world. We shouldn't ask a great personal sacrifice on their part to achieve it. Heather Cox Richardson makes it a point in her column, and I wanted to recount it on the floor of the Senate. So as we think about Selma, AL, and we think on more than just that picture of people coming over the bridge, we think of the reason they were coming over that bridge: to vote, to be part of America. They have an opportunity to speak in a democracy. It is so fundamental. It is so basic. It is so American. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-06-pt1-PgS646 | null | 5,936 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Rail Safety Madam President, now on rail safety, it is a busy time for the Senate, as we get to the bottom of what went wrong last month in East Palestine. Last week, my colleagues Senator Brown, a Democrat, and Senator Vance, a Republican, introduced the bipartisan Railway Safety Act of 2023. I promise to work with them and with colleagues on both sides to push this bill forward. This Thursday, the Environment and Public Works Committee, under the able leadership of Chairman Carper, will also hear from Norfolk Southern's CEO Alan Shaw. I expect a candid, honest, clear-eyed discussion about how we can prevent another East Palestine in the future. And while I am glad that Norfolk Southern's CEO is testifying, we cannot have an open debate, an honest debate, in Congress about rail safety unless Republicans acknowledge how they spent years opposing safety rules intended to prevent accidents similar to the one in Ohio. The story of rail safety deregulation over the last decade has been a disturbing tale of Republicans placing profits over people and currying favor with the rail lobby, all at the expense of workers' and families' safety. As far back as the Obama administration, Republicans pushed numerous bills to weaken environmental standards, delay safety upgrades, and even prohibit--prohibit--Federal funding for Amtrak. Under President Trump's watch, it became easier to transport flammable liquids and hazardous materials without proper oversight. Under President Trump's watch, it also became easier to cut back on staffing requirements while operating a train. And it was the Trump administration that killed proposals to expand electronic brake requirements across the industry. The reason for that delay? The Trump administration thought it was ``not economically justified.'' You can't come up with a better slogan for Republicans' attitude toward rail safety than this: not economicallyjustified. Imagine the message that sends to small towns across America like East Palestine, with rail lines running right through them. I want to be clear. A full investigation into the cause of the East Palestine derailment must be complete before we know the specifics behind the accident, but it doesn't take an expert to see that, if you spend years trying to cut back safety regulations, if you spend years doing the bidding of the rail lobby, then, in the long run, communities like East Palestine are at greater risk of accidents--and so are so many of my communities in upstate New York, where two of the major national rail lines run through the State, one across the center of the State near where the Erie Canal ran, going through Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, Albany, and down the Hudson River; and the other across the southern tier. In fact, now, this weekend, we saw yet another Norfolk Southern derailment in Ohio, near Springfield. Thank God, nobody was hurt. So I look forward to hearing from Norfolk Southern's CEO this week. I look forward to working with both sides to increase rail safety through legislation. But Republicans need to acknowledge that accidents like the one in East Palestine don't happen out of the blue. They become more likely when maximizing profits is crowned king above everything else, even above people's safety. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-06-pt1-PgS648-6 | null | 5,937 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or votes objected to under clause 6 of rule XX. The House will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-03-07-pt1-PgH1124-4 | null | 5,938 |
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. 1226) to amend title 38, United States Code, to allow for the electronic request of certain records, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-03-07-pt1-PgH1130-4 | null | 5,939 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER. 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. 1123) to direct the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information to submit to Congress a report examining the cybersecurity of mobile service networks, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER | House | CREC-2023-03-07-pt1-PgH1132-2 | null | 5,940 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER. Under clause 5(d) of rule XX, the Chair announces to the House that in light of the administration of the oath to the gentlewoman from Virginia, the whole number of the House is 435. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER | House | CREC-2023-03-07-pt1-PgH1132 | null | 5,941 |
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-2023-03-07-pt1-PgH1150 | null | 5,942 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. POSEY: H.J. Res. 39. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8 The single subject of this legislation is: A Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving a Department of Commerce rule (87 Fed. Reg, 56868). | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-03-07-pt1-PgH1152-18 | null | 5,943 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Ms. TENNEY: H.J. Res. 40. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article 5 The single subject of this legislation is: Prohibits Non-Citizen Voting in Elections | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-03-07-pt1-PgH1152-19 | null | 5,944 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Government Funding Mr. President, the budget. For the last 2 months, Democrats have highlighted the contrast between our vision and the Republican vision for our country. Republicans, meanwhile, have spent all this time trying to prove us right. In a few days, President Biden will release his budget for the 2024 fiscal year. Americans can expect the President to present a bold, optimistic, and responsible path for the Nation. The President's plan is going to show how we can lower the deficit in a responsible manner. His plan will strengthen Social Security and keep Medicare solvent for another 2 decades. And the President's plan will preserve his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year. This isn't just talk because Democrats have already shown we can do these things. We already lowered the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars. We already lowered the cost of prescription drugs, like insulin, and we hope to build on that promise in the near future. And the President explained this morning in an op-ed in the New York Times that he plans to build on the progress we made last year in the Inflation Reduction Act by making Medicare solvent through the year 2050. Isn't that great news for the American people, even younger people who will need it before 2050? He will expand the list of drugs Medicare can renegotiate. He will take profits that used to go to Big Pharma and put it toward deficit reduction. Many Americans think it would be just a great idea to take the money that normally goes to Big Pharma and put it towards deficit reduction and towards keeping Medicare solvent longer. This commonsense step will help millions of ordinary Americans. Republicans, to their credit, are being very helpful about erasing any doubt about which party is fighting for the working people and the middle class. While Democrats are for keeping taxes low for most Americans, Republicans tried to push a national sales tax that would have sent taxes surging by 30 percent for millions. While Democrats want to make the wealthy pay their fair share, House Republicans passed their first bill, a proposal to carve out the IRS and make it easier for wealthy tax cheats to avoid detection. While Democrats will protect Social Security, Republicans, like the senior Senator from Wisconsin, decided to go on the radio the day after the State of the Union and call Social Security a ``Ponzi scheme.'' Can you imagine? If my Republican colleagues have a problem with what I am saying, there is an easy solution. Speaker McCarthy needs to stop dodging and show us the Republican plan. It is now March 7. Two months have passed already in this year. The debt ceiling X date is approaching. Republicans have said they will release a plan. They say they want spending cuts in return for just paying our debts which we already incurred. Where is their plan? What is the holdup? The President will release his budget very soon, and the onus is on Speaker McCarthy to respond with a serious plan of his own that is a budget planthat deals with deficit reduction, because we think that should occur without hostage-taking, without any brinkmanship, as it has been done three times in the past few years. So, Speaker McCarthy, respond with a plan, one that can unite the fractured and chaotic factions of the Republican Congress. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-07-pt1-PgS660-2 | null | 5,945 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Rail Safety Mr. President, the residents of East Palestine, OH, were still desperate for answers about the toxic derailment of the Norfolk Southern train in their town a month ago when a second Norfolk Southern train derailed in Springfield, OH, this past weekend. This morning, we learned of even another accident involving Norfolk Southern. A railroad employee was killed early this morning when a Norfolk Southern train collided with a dump truck in Cleveland, OH. These three rail accidents in just 1 month--one of them a catastrophic derailment--have sent a grave and blaring signal that we need to do more to protect American communities from hazardous freight rail shipments. The need for greater rail safety is urgent, especially in my State of Illinois. Chicago, IL, is the busiest rail hub in the United States. About a quarter of all freight rail traffic in our Nation passes through the Chicago area every year. If we ignore the warnings from East Palestine and Springfield, OH, it is only a matter of time until the next deadly derailment. In East Palestine, the government has responded quickly. Federal Agencies were on the ground within hours and are still there today. President Biden has instructed workers from Federal Agencies to even go door to door, checking on the residents in the area to see who may need medical attention as a result of exposure to toxic chemicals. These are the right steps to take, but we also need to do more to prevent train derailments and accidents in the first place so that more communities don't find themselves facing the same dangers and uncertainty as East Palestine. Freight rail traffic has increased in recent decades, and it continues to grow. At the same time, freight companies have moved to larger and longer trains to increase profits. But Federal regulations have not kept pace with the changing rail industry. That is the problem. Listen to these figures, which tell the story. In 2001, the profit margin of the leading freight carriers was 15 percent. Today, the profit margin of those same rail carriers is 41 percent--from 15 to 41 percent. While derailments are down overall since the 1970s, the number of train accidents per mile has actually increased. In addition, over the last 7 years, the damage from derailments has grown, particularly from trains carrying hazardous chemicals. Instead of investing adequately in safety and their workers, freight rail companies have cut staff dramatically and fought to dismantle safety regulations. Those efforts paid off under the previous President, when rail industry regulators dramatically loosened a number of safety rules. The result is greater danger, more congestion, and blocked rail crossings in communities across America. The disaster in East Palestine appears finally to have produced a bipartisan consensus that change is needed--and it is. My colleagues from Ohio, Senators Brown and Vance, have introduced a bipartisan bill that will make several important, commonsense changes and force freight railroads to improve the safety of their operations. I support these efforts and hope the Senate will pass the bill soon. While the exact causes of the recent Ohio derailments have not yet been determined, inspectors for the national Surface Transportation Board found that a wheel bearing on the derailed Norfolk Southern train in East Palestine heated to more than 250 degrees above average--250 degrees--causing the plastic pellets it was carrying to catch fire. The bipartisan bill from Senators Brown and Vance will increase how frequently the temperature of wheel bearings must be checked. It also would require additional safety procedures for trains carrying these deadly and dangerous materials. This includes rules for the length of trains and their weight, increased inspections, and a requirement that trains hauling hazardous materials have two trained crew members on board instead of just one. Finally, the Brown-Vance bill would provide funding for hazmat training for first responders, and it would invest in both rail research and the development of new tank car safety features. These are important safety steps that will protect rail workers and the communities through which these trains pass. This past December, Congress approved a labor agreement that gives rail workers the largest wage increase in 50 years, but most of the railroads balked at providing their workers with even 1 day of paid sick leave per year so that they can take care of themselves and their families. For too long, railroads have shortchanged their workers and possibly endangered American communities, maximizing their corporate profits. It is time for change. Working for railroads is a tradition in my family. I grew up in East St. Louis, IL. Both of my parents worked for the New York Central Railroad. My two brothers and I also worked for the same railroad. I know from personal experience that many railroad jobs are physically demanding and can be dangerous. Lucky for me, the only scar I have from working on the railroad is a minor one, but others have been injured in more grievous ways. We can't take all the risks out of rail transport, but we must reduce unnecessary risk. The bipartisan Brown-Vance bill strikes the right balance. We should pass it without delay. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-07-pt1-PgS662 | null | 5,946 |
formal | Cleveland | null | racist | Rail Safety Mr. President, the residents of East Palestine, OH, were still desperate for answers about the toxic derailment of the Norfolk Southern train in their town a month ago when a second Norfolk Southern train derailed in Springfield, OH, this past weekend. This morning, we learned of even another accident involving Norfolk Southern. A railroad employee was killed early this morning when a Norfolk Southern train collided with a dump truck in Cleveland, OH. These three rail accidents in just 1 month--one of them a catastrophic derailment--have sent a grave and blaring signal that we need to do more to protect American communities from hazardous freight rail shipments. The need for greater rail safety is urgent, especially in my State of Illinois. Chicago, IL, is the busiest rail hub in the United States. About a quarter of all freight rail traffic in our Nation passes through the Chicago area every year. If we ignore the warnings from East Palestine and Springfield, OH, it is only a matter of time until the next deadly derailment. In East Palestine, the government has responded quickly. Federal Agencies were on the ground within hours and are still there today. President Biden has instructed workers from Federal Agencies to even go door to door, checking on the residents in the area to see who may need medical attention as a result of exposure to toxic chemicals. These are the right steps to take, but we also need to do more to prevent train derailments and accidents in the first place so that more communities don't find themselves facing the same dangers and uncertainty as East Palestine. Freight rail traffic has increased in recent decades, and it continues to grow. At the same time, freight companies have moved to larger and longer trains to increase profits. But Federal regulations have not kept pace with the changing rail industry. That is the problem. Listen to these figures, which tell the story. In 2001, the profit margin of the leading freight carriers was 15 percent. Today, the profit margin of those same rail carriers is 41 percent--from 15 to 41 percent. While derailments are down overall since the 1970s, the number of train accidents per mile has actually increased. In addition, over the last 7 years, the damage from derailments has grown, particularly from trains carrying hazardous chemicals. Instead of investing adequately in safety and their workers, freight rail companies have cut staff dramatically and fought to dismantle safety regulations. Those efforts paid off under the previous President, when rail industry regulators dramatically loosened a number of safety rules. The result is greater danger, more congestion, and blocked rail crossings in communities across America. The disaster in East Palestine appears finally to have produced a bipartisan consensus that change is needed--and it is. My colleagues from Ohio, Senators Brown and Vance, have introduced a bipartisan bill that will make several important, commonsense changes and force freight railroads to improve the safety of their operations. I support these efforts and hope the Senate will pass the bill soon. While the exact causes of the recent Ohio derailments have not yet been determined, inspectors for the national Surface Transportation Board found that a wheel bearing on the derailed Norfolk Southern train in East Palestine heated to more than 250 degrees above average--250 degrees--causing the plastic pellets it was carrying to catch fire. The bipartisan bill from Senators Brown and Vance will increase how frequently the temperature of wheel bearings must be checked. It also would require additional safety procedures for trains carrying these deadly and dangerous materials. This includes rules for the length of trains and their weight, increased inspections, and a requirement that trains hauling hazardous materials have two trained crew members on board instead of just one. Finally, the Brown-Vance bill would provide funding for hazmat training for first responders, and it would invest in both rail research and the development of new tank car safety features. These are important safety steps that will protect rail workers and the communities through which these trains pass. This past December, Congress approved a labor agreement that gives rail workers the largest wage increase in 50 years, but most of the railroads balked at providing their workers with even 1 day of paid sick leave per year so that they can take care of themselves and their families. For too long, railroads have shortchanged their workers and possibly endangered American communities, maximizing their corporate profits. It is time for change. Working for railroads is a tradition in my family. I grew up in East St. Louis, IL. Both of my parents worked for the New York Central Railroad. My two brothers and I also worked for the same railroad. I know from personal experience that many railroad jobs are physically demanding and can be dangerous. Lucky for me, the only scar I have from working on the railroad is a minor one, but others have been injured in more grievous ways. We can't take all the risks out of rail transport, but we must reduce unnecessary risk. The bipartisan Brown-Vance bill strikes the right balance. We should pass it without delay. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-07-pt1-PgS662 | null | 5,947 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Federal Judiciary Mr. President, on another but somewhat related matter, over the last several years, Washington Democrats have waged war on our independent Federal judiciary. Three years ago, the majority leader of the Senate, the Senator from New York, joined an abortion rally outside the Supreme Court, where he made deeply disturbing comments about two sitting Associate Justices on the Supreme Court of the United States. He said: I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. That is a quote. Well, the majority leader certainly did not mince words. The top Democrat in the U.S. Senate threatened two sitting Supreme Court Justices by name based on a case they were considering. In the year since, the radical left has picked up the sword and carried on the fight. Last summer, as the Supreme Court considered a case on abortion rights, a radical organization released the home addresses of several Supreme Court Justices, and they encouraged protesters to show up at the Justices' private homes to harass and intimidate. It was a disgusting invasion of privacy and a massive security risk, which sadly was met with nothing more than a shrug by many of our Democratic colleagues. Attorney General Garland himself had an opportunity to address this abhorrent conduct in the Judiciary Committee last week, and he confirmed that, to date, no prosecutions have been brought under a Federal statute making what these protesters did a crime--seeking to intimidate sitting Justices and cause them to change their opinion on legal matters that they were charged with. No prosecutions. With no real repercussions for such gross behavior, the far left has now expanded its attack to include other Federal judges. Last month, the liberal news site Vox published a story railing against what it described as ``Trump's worst judges,'' all of whom serve on the Federal courts in my State of Texas. The author of that piece tweeted the article that featured a photo of one of those judges, Matthew Kacsmaryk. The author added that Judge Kacsmaryk is ``the single worst villain in the United States of America that most people have never heard of, and I am determined to make him a household name.'' This blatant attack on this sitting Federal judge and on the independent judiciary wasn't just limited to a liberal news site; larger mainstream news sources joined in too. The Washington Post recently published an opinion piece that argued that the only way to ``rein in Republican judges'' is to shame them. These are Federal judges who were given life tenure following Senate confirmation for the very purpose of making them insulated from politics so that they can remain laser-focused on judging the law and interpreting the Constitution and applying it to the case before them. The Washington Post opinion piece I am referring to says: Democratic politicians, left-leaning activist groups, newspaper editorial boards, and other influential people and institutions need to start relentlessly blasting Republican- appointed judges. A former aide to Senator Schumer, majority leader of the U.S. Senate, who now serves as the executive director of a dark money group called Demand Justice, shared that article on Twitter and endorsed the idea of referring to judges by ``their party affiliation.'' Again, these are Senate-confirmed judges who serve for life who have basically forsworn politics. But this former aide to the Senate majority leader says: No, you need to refer to them by their party affiliation--presumably the party affiliation of the President who nominated them to the office. As our country struggles to deal with hate speak online and threats of violence against our leaders and politicians, it is hard to imagine anything getting more dangerous than the rhetoric targeting Federal judges and the independent Federal judiciary. Last summer, U.S. marshals arrested a man outside of Justice Kavanaugh's home who had traveled all the way from California with the intention of assassinating Justice Kavanaugh. When the man was arrested, he had in his possession a Glock 17 pistol, along with ammunition, a knife, a hammer, a crowbar, and zip ties. He told authorities that it was his plan to break into the house and kill Justice Kavanaugh and then take his own life. Thank God he was caught before anyone was harmed. But we may not be so lucky next time when this reprehensible, irresponsible rhetoric strikes unstable individuals and prompts them to do things that none of us, I hope, would want or endorse. Blatant attacks against judges and our independent judiciary must come to an end. Sadly, one of our Senate colleagues has joined the ranks of the angry mob. Last month, the senior Senator from Oregon delivered an incredibly dangerous speech here on the Senate floor advocating for the Biden administration to ignore a potential court order from Judge Kacsmaryk's court. To be clear, this is a U.S. Senator who said that the executive branch should disregard the lawful order of a Federal district judge. He wants the Constitution to be effectively ripped into shreds and thrown out the window if the judge happens to decide a case in a way that he doesn't approve of. The left's attack on our independent judiciary keeps getting more and more dangerous. It doesn't matter what case is in a Federal court or what ruling is ultimately handed down--Senators must respect the Constitution itself, and with that comes three coequal branches of government. Judicial independence is the thing that distinguishes our democracy and our Constitution from all other countries on the planet--judicial independence: judges who aren't afraid to call balls and strikes and interpret the Constitution, hopefully, as written and apply the laws that Congress passes. That judicial independence should never be threatened. If a U.S. Senator doesn't realize that, then we have some really, really big problems. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-07-pt1-PgS666 | null | 5,948 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Federal Judiciary Mr. President, on another but somewhat related matter, over the last several years, Washington Democrats have waged war on our independent Federal judiciary. Three years ago, the majority leader of the Senate, the Senator from New York, joined an abortion rally outside the Supreme Court, where he made deeply disturbing comments about two sitting Associate Justices on the Supreme Court of the United States. He said: I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. That is a quote. Well, the majority leader certainly did not mince words. The top Democrat in the U.S. Senate threatened two sitting Supreme Court Justices by name based on a case they were considering. In the year since, the radical left has picked up the sword and carried on the fight. Last summer, as the Supreme Court considered a case on abortion rights, a radical organization released the home addresses of several Supreme Court Justices, and they encouraged protesters to show up at the Justices' private homes to harass and intimidate. It was a disgusting invasion of privacy and a massive security risk, which sadly was met with nothing more than a shrug by many of our Democratic colleagues. Attorney General Garland himself had an opportunity to address this abhorrent conduct in the Judiciary Committee last week, and he confirmed that, to date, no prosecutions have been brought under a Federal statute making what these protesters did a crime--seeking to intimidate sitting Justices and cause them to change their opinion on legal matters that they were charged with. No prosecutions. With no real repercussions for such gross behavior, the far left has now expanded its attack to include other Federal judges. Last month, the liberal news site Vox published a story railing against what it described as ``Trump's worst judges,'' all of whom serve on the Federal courts in my State of Texas. The author of that piece tweeted the article that featured a photo of one of those judges, Matthew Kacsmaryk. The author added that Judge Kacsmaryk is ``the single worst villain in the United States of America that most people have never heard of, and I am determined to make him a household name.'' This blatant attack on this sitting Federal judge and on the independent judiciary wasn't just limited to a liberal news site; larger mainstream news sources joined in too. The Washington Post recently published an opinion piece that argued that the only way to ``rein in Republican judges'' is to shame them. These are Federal judges who were given life tenure following Senate confirmation for the very purpose of making them insulated from politics so that they can remain laser-focused on judging the law and interpreting the Constitution and applying it to the case before them. The Washington Post opinion piece I am referring to says: Democratic politicians, left-leaning activist groups, newspaper editorial boards, and other influential people and institutions need to start relentlessly blasting Republican- appointed judges. A former aide to Senator Schumer, majority leader of the U.S. Senate, who now serves as the executive director of a dark money group called Demand Justice, shared that article on Twitter and endorsed the idea of referring to judges by ``their party affiliation.'' Again, these are Senate-confirmed judges who serve for life who have basically forsworn politics. But this former aide to the Senate majority leader says: No, you need to refer to them by their party affiliation--presumably the party affiliation of the President who nominated them to the office. As our country struggles to deal with hate speak online and threats of violence against our leaders and politicians, it is hard to imagine anything getting more dangerous than the rhetoric targeting Federal judges and the independent Federal judiciary. Last summer, U.S. marshals arrested a man outside of Justice Kavanaugh's home who had traveled all the way from California with the intention of assassinating Justice Kavanaugh. When the man was arrested, he had in his possession a Glock 17 pistol, along with ammunition, a knife, a hammer, a crowbar, and zip ties. He told authorities that it was his plan to break into the house and kill Justice Kavanaugh and then take his own life. Thank God he was caught before anyone was harmed. But we may not be so lucky next time when this reprehensible, irresponsible rhetoric strikes unstable individuals and prompts them to do things that none of us, I hope, would want or endorse. Blatant attacks against judges and our independent judiciary must come to an end. Sadly, one of our Senate colleagues has joined the ranks of the angry mob. Last month, the senior Senator from Oregon delivered an incredibly dangerous speech here on the Senate floor advocating for the Biden administration to ignore a potential court order from Judge Kacsmaryk's court. To be clear, this is a U.S. Senator who said that the executive branch should disregard the lawful order of a Federal district judge. He wants the Constitution to be effectively ripped into shreds and thrown out the window if the judge happens to decide a case in a way that he doesn't approve of. The left's attack on our independent judiciary keeps getting more and more dangerous. It doesn't matter what case is in a Federal court or what ruling is ultimately handed down--Senators must respect the Constitution itself, and with that comes three coequal branches of government. Judicial independence is the thing that distinguishes our democracy and our Constitution from all other countries on the planet--judicial independence: judges who aren't afraid to call balls and strikes and interpret the Constitution, hopefully, as written and apply the laws that Congress passes. That judicial independence should never be threatened. If a U.S. Senator doesn't realize that, then we have some really, really big problems. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-07-pt1-PgS666 | null | 5,949 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Federal Judiciary Mr. President, on another but somewhat related matter, over the last several years, Washington Democrats have waged war on our independent Federal judiciary. Three years ago, the majority leader of the Senate, the Senator from New York, joined an abortion rally outside the Supreme Court, where he made deeply disturbing comments about two sitting Associate Justices on the Supreme Court of the United States. He said: I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. That is a quote. Well, the majority leader certainly did not mince words. The top Democrat in the U.S. Senate threatened two sitting Supreme Court Justices by name based on a case they were considering. In the year since, the radical left has picked up the sword and carried on the fight. Last summer, as the Supreme Court considered a case on abortion rights, a radical organization released the home addresses of several Supreme Court Justices, and they encouraged protesters to show up at the Justices' private homes to harass and intimidate. It was a disgusting invasion of privacy and a massive security risk, which sadly was met with nothing more than a shrug by many of our Democratic colleagues. Attorney General Garland himself had an opportunity to address this abhorrent conduct in the Judiciary Committee last week, and he confirmed that, to date, no prosecutions have been brought under a Federal statute making what these protesters did a crime--seeking to intimidate sitting Justices and cause them to change their opinion on legal matters that they were charged with. No prosecutions. With no real repercussions for such gross behavior, the far left has now expanded its attack to include other Federal judges. Last month, the liberal news site Vox published a story railing against what it described as ``Trump's worst judges,'' all of whom serve on the Federal courts in my State of Texas. The author of that piece tweeted the article that featured a photo of one of those judges, Matthew Kacsmaryk. The author added that Judge Kacsmaryk is ``the single worst villain in the United States of America that most people have never heard of, and I am determined to make him a household name.'' This blatant attack on this sitting Federal judge and on the independent judiciary wasn't just limited to a liberal news site; larger mainstream news sources joined in too. The Washington Post recently published an opinion piece that argued that the only way to ``rein in Republican judges'' is to shame them. These are Federal judges who were given life tenure following Senate confirmation for the very purpose of making them insulated from politics so that they can remain laser-focused on judging the law and interpreting the Constitution and applying it to the case before them. The Washington Post opinion piece I am referring to says: Democratic politicians, left-leaning activist groups, newspaper editorial boards, and other influential people and institutions need to start relentlessly blasting Republican- appointed judges. A former aide to Senator Schumer, majority leader of the U.S. Senate, who now serves as the executive director of a dark money group called Demand Justice, shared that article on Twitter and endorsed the idea of referring to judges by ``their party affiliation.'' Again, these are Senate-confirmed judges who serve for life who have basically forsworn politics. But this former aide to the Senate majority leader says: No, you need to refer to them by their party affiliation--presumably the party affiliation of the President who nominated them to the office. As our country struggles to deal with hate speak online and threats of violence against our leaders and politicians, it is hard to imagine anything getting more dangerous than the rhetoric targeting Federal judges and the independent Federal judiciary. Last summer, U.S. marshals arrested a man outside of Justice Kavanaugh's home who had traveled all the way from California with the intention of assassinating Justice Kavanaugh. When the man was arrested, he had in his possession a Glock 17 pistol, along with ammunition, a knife, a hammer, a crowbar, and zip ties. He told authorities that it was his plan to break into the house and kill Justice Kavanaugh and then take his own life. Thank God he was caught before anyone was harmed. But we may not be so lucky next time when this reprehensible, irresponsible rhetoric strikes unstable individuals and prompts them to do things that none of us, I hope, would want or endorse. Blatant attacks against judges and our independent judiciary must come to an end. Sadly, one of our Senate colleagues has joined the ranks of the angry mob. Last month, the senior Senator from Oregon delivered an incredibly dangerous speech here on the Senate floor advocating for the Biden administration to ignore a potential court order from Judge Kacsmaryk's court. To be clear, this is a U.S. Senator who said that the executive branch should disregard the lawful order of a Federal district judge. He wants the Constitution to be effectively ripped into shreds and thrown out the window if the judge happens to decide a case in a way that he doesn't approve of. The left's attack on our independent judiciary keeps getting more and more dangerous. It doesn't matter what case is in a Federal court or what ruling is ultimately handed down--Senators must respect the Constitution itself, and with that comes three coequal branches of government. Judicial independence is the thing that distinguishes our democracy and our Constitution from all other countries on the planet--judicial independence: judges who aren't afraid to call balls and strikes and interpret the Constitution, hopefully, as written and apply the laws that Congress passes. That judicial independence should never be threatened. If a U.S. Senator doesn't realize that, then we have some really, really big problems. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-07-pt1-PgS666 | null | 5,950 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate voted to confirm Judge Robert Ballou to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Born in Roanoke, VA, Judge Ballou received both his bachelor's degree and J.D. from the University of Virginia. After clerking for Judge Peter H. Beer on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Ballou began his legal career at Christian, Barton, Epps, Brent & Chappell as an associate, where he worked on a variety of matters, including insurance defense, products liability, and traffic and misdemeanor offenses. He then went on to work for Johnson, Ayers & Matthews, PLC as an associate, where he tried more than 50 cases to verdict before a jury, including matters involving personal injury, products liability, and construction defects. In 2011, Judge Ballou was appointed to serve as a U.S. magistrate judge for the same district to which he is now nominated. As a magistrate, he has presided over approximately 300 cases. The American Bar Association rated Judge Ballou unanimously ``well qualified,'' and he has the strong support of Senators Warner and Kaine. Judge Ballou's deep ties to the Virginia legal community, combined with his significant courtroom experience, will make him an excellent addition to the Federal district court bench. I was pleased to support his nomination. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-03-07-pt1-PgS668-4 | null | 5,951 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | By Mr. COTTON (for himself, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Braun, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Daines, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Thune, Mr. Wicker, and Mr. Young): S. 691. A bill to deter foreign financial institutions from providing banking services for the benefit of foreign terrorist organizations and from facilitating or promoting payments for acts of terrorism; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2023-03-07-pt1-PgS671 | null | 5,952 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | By Mr. COTTON (for himself, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Braun, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Daines, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Thune, Mr. Wicker, and Mr. Young): S. 691. A bill to deter foreign financial institutions from providing banking services for the benefit of foreign terrorist organizations and from facilitating or promoting payments for acts of terrorism; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2023-03-07-pt1-PgS671 | null | 5,953 |
formal | law and order | null | racist | Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am going to turn this over to Senator Hagerty and my other colleagues here in a minute, but I just, one, want to recognize Senator Hagerty from Tennessee for doing something that needed to be done. The Congressional Review Act allows us, as a body, to look at certain enactments coming from the DC--District of Columbia--City Council for our approval. I am just going to go through the highlights here, but tomorrow, we will be voting on Senator Hagerty's proposal to disapprove legislation that was passed regarding revising the DC criminal code. And Senator Hagerty has done a good service for the people of the District of Columbia and, I think, for the body and the Nation as a whole. So what are we talking about? This is numbers for the District of Columbia, your Nation's Capital: Total DC crime has increased 25 percent from 2022 to 2023 as of March 3. Carjackings are up 111 percent, have increased for the fifth straight year. Homicides are up 40 percent, and DC has already reached 38 homicides. The average homicide suspect has been arrested 11 times before committing a homicide. Sexual assaults are up 123 percent. Property crimes are up 32 percent. There have been 393 robberies in DC during the last 2 months. According to the Metropolitan Police Department, there are 430 fewer officers than they had in 2019. It is the lowest number of officers since the 1970s. I don't know where to end this thing other than to say that the DC City Council, in light of all of this information, passed a law over the objection of the Mayor that would reduce the maximum sentence available for crimes such as carjacking, robbery, home invasion, burglary, firearm offenses, when all of these offenses are at a historic high. So Senator Hagerty saw what they did and said: This is insane. I just read to you a dramatic increase in crime across the board--personal property, sexual assault, and murder--and the DC City Council passed a law over the objection, the veto, of the Mayor to reduce maximum sentences to eliminate nonenhanced mandatory minimum sentences for all offenses, except first-degree murder; lowers maximum sentences to 45 years; expands judicial sentencing reconsideration to all criminals after 20 years of imprisonment; reduces the scope and maximum penalty for felony murder. The bottom line is, instead of increasing punishments, they decided to dramatically decrease punishments for the crimes that are out of hand. So when Senator Hagerty introduced this legislation that would reject this, things started changing--starting with the President of the United States, who said that he was going to veto any attempt by the Congress to stop the DC law from becoming law. Well, something happened because he has changed his mind. In the House, Democrats and Republicans passed this Congressional Review Act overwhelmingly. The bottom line is President Biden has now indicated he will sign it, and DC City Council is trying to find a way to take it off the books. I doubt if they can. So, Senator Hagerty, sometimes we wonder if we make a difference here. You have made a difference. You have brought this body together because I would anticipate, tomorrow, that we are going to have an overwhelming vote to reject the DC City Council's efforts to revise their criminal code to make it less deterrent. All of us live up here during the week. It is our Nation's Capital. It is one of the most beautiful places I have ever visited. But crime is out of control. And we need to restore law and order to our Nation's Capital, and this effort by Senator Hagerty is now being joined by a legion of Senate Democrats. And I want to thank each and every Democrat for stepping forward and joining Senator Hagerty and all the Republicans for saying no to this bad idea of being soft on crime in a city that is overwhelmed by crime. So if there was an award to be given for bad ideas, I would nominate what the DC City Council did in trying to reduce punishments for crimes against persons and property at a time when the city is on fire in terms of crime. So Senator Hagerty and others have stepped into the breach. Tomorrow, we are going to vote and we are going to end this ill-conceived idea. And I want to thank Senator Hagerty for his leadership, and I look forward to being his wingman tomorrow. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRAHAM | Senate | CREC-2023-03-07-pt1-PgS674-2 | null | 5,954 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. Votes will be taken in the following order: Adoption of H. Con. Res. 21; and Motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 753. 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-2023-03-08-pt1-PgH1194-3 | null | 5,955 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 21) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War PowersResolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Syria, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-03-08-pt1-PgH1194-4 | null | 5,956 |
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. 753) to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to use on-site regulated medical waste treatment systems at certain Department of Veterans Affairs facilities, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-03-08-pt1-PgH1195 | null | 5,957 |
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-2023-03-08-pt1-PgH1207 | null | 5,958 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. NEHLS: H.J. Res. 41. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Pursuant to clause 7 of Rule XII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following statement is submitted regarding the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the accompanying bill or joint resolution. 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: The Resolution of Disapproval would prevent the rule submitted by the Department of Homeland Security relating to ``Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility'' (87 Fed. Reg. 5547; published September 9, 2022), from having any force or effect. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-03-08-pt1-PgH1208-23 | null | 5,959 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | The Budget Mr. President, now on the budget, President Biden's budget won't be released until midday tomorrow, but we can already draw a couple of big conclusions about the contrast between his vision--the Democratic vision--and the Republican vision for our country. The President, for instance, is willing to do what Republicans are not: lower the deficit in a realistic, responsible way without cutting benefits that tens of millions of people rely on. In fact, Democrats have already proved it is possible: The Inflation Reduction Act not only saved families money, it also lowers the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars. The Republicans like to talk about cutting the debt, but Democrats are the ones actually getting it done. Unlike Republicans, the President is also asking the richest of the rich to pay a little more of their fair share in taxes so that tens of millions of Americans will not see their Medicare benefits wither away in a few years. Under the President's plan, Medicare would remain solvent well beyond 2050. Isn't that great? Medicare, which we have always worried about, which is so important to tens of millions of Americans, would stay solvent until 2050. Republicans, of course, want to go the other way. Instead of cutting taxes for the middle class, their priority is tax cuts to billionaires and large corporations. Now, I have no problem with those at the very top. God bless them. They are doing just fine. But I think most Americans agree that CEOs should never have a lower tax burden than nurses, teachers, cabdrivers, firefighters, and police officers. If my friends on the other side want to call that outlandish or extreme, they can go right ahead, but I warn them they will be at odds with the vast majority of Americans. Finally, the President's plan will build on what Democrats accomplished last year to lower the cost of prescription drugs. For the first time ever, Medicare now has the authority to negotiate the price of certain drugs, saving taxpayers billions of dollars, but the President is right to push further in expanding the list of drugs whose prices Medicare can negotiate. So let's run through the list one more time. The President's plan is going to continue lowering the cost of prescription drugs. He is going to ensure that Medicare remains solvent beyond 2050, without cutting a penny in benefits. He is going to ask the wealthy to pay just a little more of their fair share in taxes without raising taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year. And his plan will cut the deficit by $2 trillion--$2 trillion--over the next 10 years. Speaker McCarthy, what about you? Where is your plan? Enough with the dodging. Enough with the excuses. It is time to level with the American people so they can see the contrast between Democrats and Republicans for themselves. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-08-pt1-PgS678 | null | 5,960 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | The Budget Mr. President, now on the budget, President Biden's budget won't be released until midday tomorrow, but we can already draw a couple of big conclusions about the contrast between his vision--the Democratic vision--and the Republican vision for our country. The President, for instance, is willing to do what Republicans are not: lower the deficit in a realistic, responsible way without cutting benefits that tens of millions of people rely on. In fact, Democrats have already proved it is possible: The Inflation Reduction Act not only saved families money, it also lowers the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars. The Republicans like to talk about cutting the debt, but Democrats are the ones actually getting it done. Unlike Republicans, the President is also asking the richest of the rich to pay a little more of their fair share in taxes so that tens of millions of Americans will not see their Medicare benefits wither away in a few years. Under the President's plan, Medicare would remain solvent well beyond 2050. Isn't that great? Medicare, which we have always worried about, which is so important to tens of millions of Americans, would stay solvent until 2050. Republicans, of course, want to go the other way. Instead of cutting taxes for the middle class, their priority is tax cuts to billionaires and large corporations. Now, I have no problem with those at the very top. God bless them. They are doing just fine. But I think most Americans agree that CEOs should never have a lower tax burden than nurses, teachers, cabdrivers, firefighters, and police officers. If my friends on the other side want to call that outlandish or extreme, they can go right ahead, but I warn them they will be at odds with the vast majority of Americans. Finally, the President's plan will build on what Democrats accomplished last year to lower the cost of prescription drugs. For the first time ever, Medicare now has the authority to negotiate the price of certain drugs, saving taxpayers billions of dollars, but the President is right to push further in expanding the list of drugs whose prices Medicare can negotiate. So let's run through the list one more time. The President's plan is going to continue lowering the cost of prescription drugs. He is going to ensure that Medicare remains solvent beyond 2050, without cutting a penny in benefits. He is going to ask the wealthy to pay just a little more of their fair share in taxes without raising taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year. And his plan will cut the deficit by $2 trillion--$2 trillion--over the next 10 years. Speaker McCarthy, what about you? Where is your plan? Enough with the dodging. Enough with the excuses. It is time to level with the American people so they can see the contrast between Democrats and Republicans for themselves. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-08-pt1-PgS678 | null | 5,961 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | The Budget Mr. President, now on the budget, President Biden's budget won't be released until midday tomorrow, but we can already draw a couple of big conclusions about the contrast between his vision--the Democratic vision--and the Republican vision for our country. The President, for instance, is willing to do what Republicans are not: lower the deficit in a realistic, responsible way without cutting benefits that tens of millions of people rely on. In fact, Democrats have already proved it is possible: The Inflation Reduction Act not only saved families money, it also lowers the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars. The Republicans like to talk about cutting the debt, but Democrats are the ones actually getting it done. Unlike Republicans, the President is also asking the richest of the rich to pay a little more of their fair share in taxes so that tens of millions of Americans will not see their Medicare benefits wither away in a few years. Under the President's plan, Medicare would remain solvent well beyond 2050. Isn't that great? Medicare, which we have always worried about, which is so important to tens of millions of Americans, would stay solvent until 2050. Republicans, of course, want to go the other way. Instead of cutting taxes for the middle class, their priority is tax cuts to billionaires and large corporations. Now, I have no problem with those at the very top. God bless them. They are doing just fine. But I think most Americans agree that CEOs should never have a lower tax burden than nurses, teachers, cabdrivers, firefighters, and police officers. If my friends on the other side want to call that outlandish or extreme, they can go right ahead, but I warn them they will be at odds with the vast majority of Americans. Finally, the President's plan will build on what Democrats accomplished last year to lower the cost of prescription drugs. For the first time ever, Medicare now has the authority to negotiate the price of certain drugs, saving taxpayers billions of dollars, but the President is right to push further in expanding the list of drugs whose prices Medicare can negotiate. So let's run through the list one more time. The President's plan is going to continue lowering the cost of prescription drugs. He is going to ensure that Medicare remains solvent beyond 2050, without cutting a penny in benefits. He is going to ask the wealthy to pay just a little more of their fair share in taxes without raising taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year. And his plan will cut the deficit by $2 trillion--$2 trillion--over the next 10 years. Speaker McCarthy, what about you? Where is your plan? Enough with the dodging. Enough with the excuses. It is time to level with the American people so they can see the contrast between Democrats and Republicans for themselves. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-08-pt1-PgS678 | null | 5,962 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | DC Criminal Code Now, Mr. President, on an entirely different matter, a man stabbed to death in a public library, a woman kidnapped and mugged in broad daylight, a construction worker assaulted by suspects who fled in a stolen car--this is just a small sampling of life in Washington, DC, in recent months. Carjackings and car thefts have become a daily routine. Homicides are racking up at a rate of four--four--per week. There have been so many attacks on people riding public transportation that civilian volunteers have had to create their own patrols on Metro trains and platforms. We are the greatest superpower Nation in history, and this is our Capital City, but local politicians have let its streets become a danger and an embarrassment. Earlier this year, local Democrats tried to respond by going even softer on crime and putting violent convicts back on the streets even more rapidly. Well, Republicans say: Enough is enough. Enough is enough. We have brought forward a resolution here in Congress that will overrule the left's effort to make this catastrophe even worse. Democrats were not happy. The White House put out a formal statement opposing us. The vast majority of House Democrats voted against us. But then President Biden had an epiphany. He reversed himself. The public pressure was so great that the President now says he wants to sign the same Republican bill that he had previously announced he opposed. The headlines tell the story: ``Biden's About-Face on DC Crime Bill Shows Democrats on [the] Defensive.'' The Democrats' flip-flop is good news for the residents of the District of Columbia and the 300-plus million Americans who deserve--deserve--to be able to visit their capital in peace. But our Democratic friends are not getting off the hook this easily. They are not going to be able to duck the heat for the violent crime surge to which their policies, their rhetoric, and their political movement have directly contributed. What about all of the Americans who live in cities and neighborhoods all across our country? In my hometown of Louisville, violent crime has become an unwelcome daily fixture. Since the start of the pandemic, over 500 lives have been lost to homicide--dozens of the victims have been children--and last fall, a car was stolen, on average, every 2.5 hours. Minneapolis has seen 19 percent more vandalism than at this point last year; San Francisco, 18 percent more robberies. In Chicago, this year's rate of car thefts is already 138 percent higher than last year's. In St. Louis, kidnappings are up 113 percent. Over the weekend, in Atlanta, dozens of rioters attacked and laid siege to the site of the city's future public safety training center--public safety training center. These people lit construction equipment on fire and aimed fireworks and Molotov cocktails at police officers. Twenty-three of these radical leftists have been charged with domestic terrorism. This is what happens when the political left spends years--years--spotlighting anti-law enforcement rhetoric. This is what happens when Democrats at all levels decide we need fewer arrests, shorter sentences, and more generosity to criminals at the expense of less justice for victims and for families. This is what happens when far-left dark money flows to radical candidates for district attorneys' offices and the liberal DAs simply refuse to prosecute whole sections of the Criminal Code. This is what happens after every single Senate Democrat voted on party lines against additional police funding just last year. Every Democratic Senator voted in lockstep against Senator Rubio's amendment that would have redirected some of their massive, reckless tax-and-spending spree to actually fund law enforcement. Look, nobody will confuse Washington Democrats' last-minute reversal on this one resolution for a ``road to Damascus'' moment on the crime issue. The American people are a lot smarter than that. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-08-pt1-PgS679-2 | null | 5,963 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | DC Criminal Code Now, Mr. President, on an entirely different matter, a man stabbed to death in a public library, a woman kidnapped and mugged in broad daylight, a construction worker assaulted by suspects who fled in a stolen car--this is just a small sampling of life in Washington, DC, in recent months. Carjackings and car thefts have become a daily routine. Homicides are racking up at a rate of four--four--per week. There have been so many attacks on people riding public transportation that civilian volunteers have had to create their own patrols on Metro trains and platforms. We are the greatest superpower Nation in history, and this is our Capital City, but local politicians have let its streets become a danger and an embarrassment. Earlier this year, local Democrats tried to respond by going even softer on crime and putting violent convicts back on the streets even more rapidly. Well, Republicans say: Enough is enough. Enough is enough. We have brought forward a resolution here in Congress that will overrule the left's effort to make this catastrophe even worse. Democrats were not happy. The White House put out a formal statement opposing us. The vast majority of House Democrats voted against us. But then President Biden had an epiphany. He reversed himself. The public pressure was so great that the President now says he wants to sign the same Republican bill that he had previously announced he opposed. The headlines tell the story: ``Biden's About-Face on DC Crime Bill Shows Democrats on [the] Defensive.'' The Democrats' flip-flop is good news for the residents of the District of Columbia and the 300-plus million Americans who deserve--deserve--to be able to visit their capital in peace. But our Democratic friends are not getting off the hook this easily. They are not going to be able to duck the heat for the violent crime surge to which their policies, their rhetoric, and their political movement have directly contributed. What about all of the Americans who live in cities and neighborhoods all across our country? In my hometown of Louisville, violent crime has become an unwelcome daily fixture. Since the start of the pandemic, over 500 lives have been lost to homicide--dozens of the victims have been children--and last fall, a car was stolen, on average, every 2.5 hours. Minneapolis has seen 19 percent more vandalism than at this point last year; San Francisco, 18 percent more robberies. In Chicago, this year's rate of car thefts is already 138 percent higher than last year's. In St. Louis, kidnappings are up 113 percent. Over the weekend, in Atlanta, dozens of rioters attacked and laid siege to the site of the city's future public safety training center--public safety training center. These people lit construction equipment on fire and aimed fireworks and Molotov cocktails at police officers. Twenty-three of these radical leftists have been charged with domestic terrorism. This is what happens when the political left spends years--years--spotlighting anti-law enforcement rhetoric. This is what happens when Democrats at all levels decide we need fewer arrests, shorter sentences, and more generosity to criminals at the expense of less justice for victims and for families. This is what happens when far-left dark money flows to radical candidates for district attorneys' offices and the liberal DAs simply refuse to prosecute whole sections of the Criminal Code. This is what happens after every single Senate Democrat voted on party lines against additional police funding just last year. Every Democratic Senator voted in lockstep against Senator Rubio's amendment that would have redirected some of their massive, reckless tax-and-spending spree to actually fund law enforcement. Look, nobody will confuse Washington Democrats' last-minute reversal on this one resolution for a ``road to Damascus'' moment on the crime issue. The American people are a lot smarter than that. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-08-pt1-PgS679-2 | null | 5,964 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | DC Criminal Code Now, Mr. President, on an entirely different matter, a man stabbed to death in a public library, a woman kidnapped and mugged in broad daylight, a construction worker assaulted by suspects who fled in a stolen car--this is just a small sampling of life in Washington, DC, in recent months. Carjackings and car thefts have become a daily routine. Homicides are racking up at a rate of four--four--per week. There have been so many attacks on people riding public transportation that civilian volunteers have had to create their own patrols on Metro trains and platforms. We are the greatest superpower Nation in history, and this is our Capital City, but local politicians have let its streets become a danger and an embarrassment. Earlier this year, local Democrats tried to respond by going even softer on crime and putting violent convicts back on the streets even more rapidly. Well, Republicans say: Enough is enough. Enough is enough. We have brought forward a resolution here in Congress that will overrule the left's effort to make this catastrophe even worse. Democrats were not happy. The White House put out a formal statement opposing us. The vast majority of House Democrats voted against us. But then President Biden had an epiphany. He reversed himself. The public pressure was so great that the President now says he wants to sign the same Republican bill that he had previously announced he opposed. The headlines tell the story: ``Biden's About-Face on DC Crime Bill Shows Democrats on [the] Defensive.'' The Democrats' flip-flop is good news for the residents of the District of Columbia and the 300-plus million Americans who deserve--deserve--to be able to visit their capital in peace. But our Democratic friends are not getting off the hook this easily. They are not going to be able to duck the heat for the violent crime surge to which their policies, their rhetoric, and their political movement have directly contributed. What about all of the Americans who live in cities and neighborhoods all across our country? In my hometown of Louisville, violent crime has become an unwelcome daily fixture. Since the start of the pandemic, over 500 lives have been lost to homicide--dozens of the victims have been children--and last fall, a car was stolen, on average, every 2.5 hours. Minneapolis has seen 19 percent more vandalism than at this point last year; San Francisco, 18 percent more robberies. In Chicago, this year's rate of car thefts is already 138 percent higher than last year's. In St. Louis, kidnappings are up 113 percent. Over the weekend, in Atlanta, dozens of rioters attacked and laid siege to the site of the city's future public safety training center--public safety training center. These people lit construction equipment on fire and aimed fireworks and Molotov cocktails at police officers. Twenty-three of these radical leftists have been charged with domestic terrorism. This is what happens when the political left spends years--years--spotlighting anti-law enforcement rhetoric. This is what happens when Democrats at all levels decide we need fewer arrests, shorter sentences, and more generosity to criminals at the expense of less justice for victims and for families. This is what happens when far-left dark money flows to radical candidates for district attorneys' offices and the liberal DAs simply refuse to prosecute whole sections of the Criminal Code. This is what happens after every single Senate Democrat voted on party lines against additional police funding just last year. Every Democratic Senator voted in lockstep against Senator Rubio's amendment that would have redirected some of their massive, reckless tax-and-spending spree to actually fund law enforcement. Look, nobody will confuse Washington Democrats' last-minute reversal on this one resolution for a ``road to Damascus'' moment on the crime issue. The American people are a lot smarter than that. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-08-pt1-PgS679-2 | null | 5,965 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, due to the passing of my mother, Betty Lou Collins Merkley, I was not able to travel back to Washington, DC, last week to be present on the Senate floor for several votes. However, I would like it stated for the record how I would have voted had I been present. On February 28, 2023, I missed rollcall vote No. 26, confirmation of Jamar K. Walker to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia. Mr. Walker has a distinguished career in both private practice, as well as in public service as a former Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia where he prosecuted a wide range of cases including bribery, money laundering, wire and, bank fraud, foreign corrupt practices, and securities fraud as part of the Financial Crimes and Public Corruption Unit. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. On February 28, 2023, I missed rollcall vote No. 28, confirmation of Jamal N. Whitehead to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington. With years of experience in commercial litigation, as a trial attorney with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Washington, Mr. Whitehead is eminently qualified for a seat on the Federal bench. As the National Employment Lawyers Association said in their letter supporting his nomination, ``Mr. Whitehead is a highly qualified attorney who would bring his background representing all sides of employment law disputes and would provide perspective that is very much needed on the federal bench. His work for employers, workers, and the government offer the kind of experience necessary to serve knowledgably and fairly as a federal judge.'' It is for these reasons that Mr. Whitehead was unanimously rated ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association and received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. On February 28, 2023, I missed rollcall vote No. 30, confirmation of Araceli Martinez-Olguin to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California. Ms. Martinez-Olguin's entire career has been dedicated to protecting civil and human rights. At the American Civil Liberties Union's--ACLU--Women's Rights Project she represented women of underserved communities with employment and education civil rights cases. At the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, she researched and advocated for victims of human trafficking and assisted in drafting the reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Ms. Martinez-Olguin also worked with Legal Aid at Work in their National Origin, Immigration, and Language Rights Program, where she strived to guarantee the civil rights of immigrant workers, particularly under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and also investigated federally funded education institutions for civil rights violations in the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. And since 2018, Ms. Martinez-Olguin has worked as a supervising attorney at the National Immigration Law Center--NILC--focusing on enforcing constitutional and statutory provisions to protect immigrants' civil and workplace rights. As only the second Latina to serve on this court, ``The confirmation of Ms. Martinez-Olguin would be an important step towards ensuring that our federal courts reflect and represent the diversity of our nation,'' in the words of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. On March 1, 2023, I missed rollcall vote No. 32, confirmation of Judge Margaret R. Guzman to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts. Judge Guzman has amassed an impressive record over the course of her legal career. Over the course of her 13 years as a public defender with Massachusetts' Committee for Public Counsel Services and then 4 more in private practice, she tried more than 175 case to verdict, judgment, or final decision representing clients who could not afford an attorney, helping them navigate the complex criminal legal system. In 2009, she was appointed to be an associate justice of the District Court on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Trial Court, and since 2017, Judge Guzman has been the first justice and a district court judge on the Ayer District Court in Middlesex County, MA. Over the course of her years on the bench, Judge Guzman has presided over more than 1,000 cases which have gone to verdict or judgment. And as the first Hispanic Judge to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, a State where nearly 900,000 adults identify as Hispanic or Latino, Judge Guzman will bring critical life experience to this seat. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. On March 1, 2023, I missed rollcall vote No. 35, passage of H.J. Res. 30--providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to ``Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights.'' This is the latest in ongoing efforts to stymie efforts to take on the climate crisis which is the greatest threat that humankind has ever faced. Passage would nullify a Labor Department rule which says plan fiduciaries may, but not must, consider climate chaos and other environment, social, and governance--ESG--factors when they make investment decisions, with respect to employee benefit plans. Rules like these are important because a growing number of Americans are increasingly concerned about the future of our planet and they don't want to be supporting businesses or industries that might be contributing in any way to climate chaos. Investors are also concerned about the risks of investing in fossil fuel companies at a time when the future of these companies remains uncertain. But supporters of this resolution don't want them to even want fiduciaries to have the option to weigh these significant considerations when making decisions about investments or shareholder rights. This is an attack on investors' rights in service of propping up the fossil fuel industry. Therefore, had I been in attendance, I would have voted nay. On March 2, 2023, I missed rollcall vote No. 37, confirmation of Colleen R. Lawless to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of Illinois. For 10 years, Judge Lawless represented plaintiffs in State and Federal courts on a wide range of civil litigation issues from employment discrimination to medical malpractice to family law. In one case, Judge Lawless represented a woman suing her insurance company as she sought coverage for a stay in a medical facility that the insurance company denied. And in another, she represented an African-American water maintenance worker who sued the city of Decatur for discrimination after he was terminated for refusing to sign an agreement that gave him a lower pay but allowed him to bypass civil service selection rules. In 2019, Judge Lawless was appointed to serve as an associate circuit judge on the Illinois 7th Judicial Circuit Court, where she is currently assigned to the domestic relations division. Over the last 4 years, Judge Lawless has presided over 125 domestic relations bench trials alongside numerous proceedings implicating mental health commitments, small claims, evictions, traffic infractions, and emergency protection orders. She has been unanimously rated as ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association, received support from several State circuit court judges and justices, as well as the Sojourn Shelter and Services, a not-for-profit corporation founded to help eliminate domestic violence through service, leadership, and education which serves five central Illinois counties, and received strong bipartisan support when her nomination was voted out of committee. Therefore, had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. On March 2, 2023, I missed rollcall vote No. 39, confirmation of JonathanJames Canada Grey to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan. Since 2021, Judge Grey has served as a magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, where he has written opinions in roughly 40 cases. Prior to that, Judge Grey worked in private practice at a law firm where he focused on labor and employment matters in Federal, State, and local courts, as well as before administrative agencies. He went on to serve as an Assistant United States Attorney for both the Southern District of Ohio and the Eastern District of Michigan, where Judge Grey briefed and argued dozens of dispositive and nondispositive motions and also led several substantial investigations in cases that spanned multiple States and countries. While serving as an AUSA in the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Grey led diversity programs and anti-domestic violence initiatives--including instituting his office's practice of prosecuting people who illegally possessed firearms after having been convicted of a domestic violence offense. Judge Grey has amassed a stellar record, received a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association, and was voted out of the Judiciary with strong bipartisan support. Therefore, had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2023-03-08-pt1-PgS710-2 | null | 5,966 |
formal | identify as | null | transphobic | Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, due to the passing of my mother, Betty Lou Collins Merkley, I was not able to travel back to Washington, DC, last week to be present on the Senate floor for several votes. However, I would like it stated for the record how I would have voted had I been present. On February 28, 2023, I missed rollcall vote No. 26, confirmation of Jamar K. Walker to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia. Mr. Walker has a distinguished career in both private practice, as well as in public service as a former Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia where he prosecuted a wide range of cases including bribery, money laundering, wire and, bank fraud, foreign corrupt practices, and securities fraud as part of the Financial Crimes and Public Corruption Unit. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. On February 28, 2023, I missed rollcall vote No. 28, confirmation of Jamal N. Whitehead to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington. With years of experience in commercial litigation, as a trial attorney with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Washington, Mr. Whitehead is eminently qualified for a seat on the Federal bench. As the National Employment Lawyers Association said in their letter supporting his nomination, ``Mr. Whitehead is a highly qualified attorney who would bring his background representing all sides of employment law disputes and would provide perspective that is very much needed on the federal bench. His work for employers, workers, and the government offer the kind of experience necessary to serve knowledgably and fairly as a federal judge.'' It is for these reasons that Mr. Whitehead was unanimously rated ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association and received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. On February 28, 2023, I missed rollcall vote No. 30, confirmation of Araceli Martinez-Olguin to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California. Ms. Martinez-Olguin's entire career has been dedicated to protecting civil and human rights. At the American Civil Liberties Union's--ACLU--Women's Rights Project she represented women of underserved communities with employment and education civil rights cases. At the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, she researched and advocated for victims of human trafficking and assisted in drafting the reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Ms. Martinez-Olguin also worked with Legal Aid at Work in their National Origin, Immigration, and Language Rights Program, where she strived to guarantee the civil rights of immigrant workers, particularly under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and also investigated federally funded education institutions for civil rights violations in the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. And since 2018, Ms. Martinez-Olguin has worked as a supervising attorney at the National Immigration Law Center--NILC--focusing on enforcing constitutional and statutory provisions to protect immigrants' civil and workplace rights. As only the second Latina to serve on this court, ``The confirmation of Ms. Martinez-Olguin would be an important step towards ensuring that our federal courts reflect and represent the diversity of our nation,'' in the words of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. On March 1, 2023, I missed rollcall vote No. 32, confirmation of Judge Margaret R. Guzman to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts. Judge Guzman has amassed an impressive record over the course of her legal career. Over the course of her 13 years as a public defender with Massachusetts' Committee for Public Counsel Services and then 4 more in private practice, she tried more than 175 case to verdict, judgment, or final decision representing clients who could not afford an attorney, helping them navigate the complex criminal legal system. In 2009, she was appointed to be an associate justice of the District Court on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Trial Court, and since 2017, Judge Guzman has been the first justice and a district court judge on the Ayer District Court in Middlesex County, MA. Over the course of her years on the bench, Judge Guzman has presided over more than 1,000 cases which have gone to verdict or judgment. And as the first Hispanic Judge to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, a State where nearly 900,000 adults identify as Hispanic or Latino, Judge Guzman will bring critical life experience to this seat. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. On March 1, 2023, I missed rollcall vote No. 35, passage of H.J. Res. 30--providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to ``Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights.'' This is the latest in ongoing efforts to stymie efforts to take on the climate crisis which is the greatest threat that humankind has ever faced. Passage would nullify a Labor Department rule which says plan fiduciaries may, but not must, consider climate chaos and other environment, social, and governance--ESG--factors when they make investment decisions, with respect to employee benefit plans. Rules like these are important because a growing number of Americans are increasingly concerned about the future of our planet and they don't want to be supporting businesses or industries that might be contributing in any way to climate chaos. Investors are also concerned about the risks of investing in fossil fuel companies at a time when the future of these companies remains uncertain. But supporters of this resolution don't want them to even want fiduciaries to have the option to weigh these significant considerations when making decisions about investments or shareholder rights. This is an attack on investors' rights in service of propping up the fossil fuel industry. Therefore, had I been in attendance, I would have voted nay. On March 2, 2023, I missed rollcall vote No. 37, confirmation of Colleen R. Lawless to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of Illinois. For 10 years, Judge Lawless represented plaintiffs in State and Federal courts on a wide range of civil litigation issues from employment discrimination to medical malpractice to family law. In one case, Judge Lawless represented a woman suing her insurance company as she sought coverage for a stay in a medical facility that the insurance company denied. And in another, she represented an African-American water maintenance worker who sued the city of Decatur for discrimination after he was terminated for refusing to sign an agreement that gave him a lower pay but allowed him to bypass civil service selection rules. In 2019, Judge Lawless was appointed to serve as an associate circuit judge on the Illinois 7th Judicial Circuit Court, where she is currently assigned to the domestic relations division. Over the last 4 years, Judge Lawless has presided over 125 domestic relations bench trials alongside numerous proceedings implicating mental health commitments, small claims, evictions, traffic infractions, and emergency protection orders. She has been unanimously rated as ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association, received support from several State circuit court judges and justices, as well as the Sojourn Shelter and Services, a not-for-profit corporation founded to help eliminate domestic violence through service, leadership, and education which serves five central Illinois counties, and received strong bipartisan support when her nomination was voted out of committee. Therefore, had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. On March 2, 2023, I missed rollcall vote No. 39, confirmation of JonathanJames Canada Grey to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan. Since 2021, Judge Grey has served as a magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, where he has written opinions in roughly 40 cases. Prior to that, Judge Grey worked in private practice at a law firm where he focused on labor and employment matters in Federal, State, and local courts, as well as before administrative agencies. He went on to serve as an Assistant United States Attorney for both the Southern District of Ohio and the Eastern District of Michigan, where Judge Grey briefed and argued dozens of dispositive and nondispositive motions and also led several substantial investigations in cases that spanned multiple States and countries. While serving as an AUSA in the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Grey led diversity programs and anti-domestic violence initiatives--including instituting his office's practice of prosecuting people who illegally possessed firearms after having been convicted of a domestic violence offense. Judge Grey has amassed a stellar record, received a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association, and was voted out of the Judiciary with strong bipartisan support. Therefore, had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2023-03-08-pt1-PgS710-2 | null | 5,967 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | SENATE RESOLUTION 99--SUPPORTING THE GOALS OF INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself, Ms. Collins, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Kaine, and Mr. Van Hollen) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 99 Whereas, as of March 2023, there are approximately 3,990,000,000 women and girls in the world, making up \1/2\ of the world's population; Whereas women and girls around the world-- (1) have fundamental human rights; (2) play a critical role in providing and caring for their families and driving positive change in their communities; (3) contribute substantially to food security, economic growth, the prevention and resolution of conflict, and the sustainability of peace and stability; (4) are affected in different and often disproportionate ways by global, country, and community circumstances, including economic downturns, global health concerns, conflict, and migration; and (5) must have meaningful protections and opportunities to more fully participate in and lead the political, social, and economic lives of their communities and countries; Whereas the advancement and empowerment of women and girls around the world is a foreign policy priority for the United States and is critical to the achievement of global peace, prosperity, and sustainability; Whereas, on October 6, 2017, the Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017 (22 U.S.C. 2152j et seq.) was enacted into law, which includes requirements for a government-wide ``Women, Peace, and Security Strategy'' to promote and strengthen the participation of women in peace negotiations and conflict prevention overseas, enhanced training for relevant United States Government personnel, and follow-up evaluations of the effectiveness of the strategy; Whereas the United States Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security, dated June 2019, recognizes that-- (1) the ``[s]ocial and political marginalization of women strongly correlates with the likelihood that a country will experience conflict''; (2) there is a ``tremendous amount of untapped potential among the world's women and girls to identify, recommend, and implement effective solutions to conflict'', and there are ``benefits derived from creating opportunities for women and girls to serve as agents of peace via political, economic, and social empowerment''; and (3) barriers to the meaningful participation of women and girls in conflict prevention and resolution efforts ``include under-representation in political leadership, pervasive violence against women and girls, and persistent inequality in many societies''; Whereas, according to the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (commonly referred to as ``UN Women''), peace negotiations are more likely to end in a peace agreement when women and women's groups play a meaningful role in the negotiation process; Whereas, according to a study by the International Peace Institute, a peace agreement is 35 percent more likely to last at least 15 years if women participate in the development of the peace agreement; Whereas, according to the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs of the Department of State, the full and meaningful participation of women in criminal justice professions and security forces vastly enhances the effectiveness of the resulting workforces; Whereas, despite the contributions of women to society, hundreds of millions of women and girls around the world continue to be denied the right to participate freely in civic and economic life, lack fundamental legal protections, and remain vulnerable to exploitation and abuse; Whereas, every year, approximately 12,000,000 girls are married before they reach the age of 18, which means that-- (1) nearly 33,000 girls are married every day; or (2) nearly 23 girls are married every minute; Whereas, despite global progress, it is predicted that by 2030 more than 150,000,000 more girls will marry before reaching the age of 18, and approximately 2,400,000 girls who are married before reaching the age of 18 are under the age of 15; Whereas girls living in countries affected by conflict or other humanitarian crises are often the most vulnerable to child marriage, and 9 of the 10 countries with the highest rates of child marriage are considered fragile or extremely fragile; Whereas, on August 15, 2021, the Taliban entered Kabul, Afghanistan, and toppled the elected government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, resulting in de facto Taliban rule over the people of Afghanistan; Whereas the Taliban continues to restrict the ability of women and girls to exist in Afghan society, including by-- (1) prohibiting girls from going to school past sixth grade, including banning women from attending university; (2) limiting the employment that women can pursue outside of their households; (3) mandating that women cover their heads and faces in public and punishing those who wear brightly colored clothing; (4) restricting the independent movement of women and girls; (5) closing domestic abuse shelters, sometimes forcing residents to return to their abusive families; (6) preventing women aid workers from operating in Afghanistan, thus restricting operations in support of humanitarian assistance for all Afghans; (7) jailing women human rights defenders; and (8) limiting access to women's healthcare, including preventative and emergency services, and requiring a male chaperone at most clinics and hospitals; Whereas, according to the United Nation's Children's Fund (commonly referred to as ``UNICEF'')-- (1) approximately \1/4\ of girls between the ages of 15 and 19 have been victims of some form of physical violence; (2) approximately 120,000,000 girls worldwide, about 1 in 10, have experienced forced sexual acts; and (3) an estimated 1 in 3 women around the world has experienced some form of physical or sexual violence; Whereas the overall level of violence against women is a better predictor of the peacefulness of a country, the compliance of a country with international treaty obligations, and the relations of a country with neighboring countries than indicators measuring the level of democracy, level of wealth, or level of institutionalization of the country; Whereas women around the world remain vastly underrepresented in government positions, as women account for only 25.6 percent of national parliamentarians and 21 percent of government ministers; Whereas the ability of women and girls to realize their full potential is critical to the ability of a country to achieve strong and lasting economic growth, self-reliance, and political and social stability; Whereas, although the United Nations Millennium Project reached the goal of achieving gender parity in primary education in most countries in 2015, the COVID-19 global pandemic has deepened gender inequality in education and more work remains to be done to achieve gender equality in primary and secondary education, particularly in secondary education worldwide as gender gaps persist and widen, by addressing-- (1) discriminatory practices; (2) harmful cultural and social norms; (3) inadequate sanitation facilities, including facilities to manage menstruation; (4) child, early, and forced marriage; (5) poverty; (6) food insecurity and malnutrition; (7) early pregnancy and motherhood; (8) conflict and insecurity; and (9) other factors that favor boys or devalue girls' education; Whereas, according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization-- (1) approximately 118,500,000 girls between the ages of 6 and 17 remain out of school; (2) girls living in countries affected by conflict are 2.5 times more likely to be out of primary school than boys; (3) girls are twice as likely as boys to never set foot in a classroom; and (4) up to 30 percent of girls who drop out of school do so because of adolescent pregnancy or child marriage; Whereas women around the world face a variety of constraints that severely limit their economic participation and productivity and remain underrepresented in the labor force; Whereas, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations-- (1) agriculture and food systems are a major source of livelihoods, particularly for rural women; (2) wage and productivity gaps persist in agriculture and food systems, despite the crucial role that women play in those sectors; (3) the work of women in agriculture and food systems is more likely than that of men to be part-time, irregular, informal, vulnerable, labor-intensive, and low-skilled; (4) in countries reporting on Sustainable Development Goal 5.a.1, more men than women are owners or have rights to agricultural land; (5) the gender gap in food insecurity is growing and has reached 4.3 percentage points, with more women experiencing severe and moderate food insecurity in all regions than men; and (6) the empowerment of women can have important benefits for agricultural productivity, nutrition, and food security; Whereas the economic empowerment of women is inextricably linked to a myriad of other internationally recognized human rights that are essential to the ability of women to thrive as economic actors, including-- (1) living lives free of violence and exploitation; (2) achieving the highest possible standard of health and well-being; (3) enjoying full legal and human rights, such as access to registration, identification, and citizenship documents, and freedom of movement; (4) access to formal and informal education; (5) access to, and equal protection under, land and property rights; (6) access to fundamental labor rights; (7) the implementation of policies to address disproportionate care burdens; and (8) receiving business and management skills and leadership opportunities; Whereas the Millennium Challenge Corporation (commonly referred to as the ``MCC''), an independent United States foreign assistance agency, recognizes that inequality and the exclusion of women from economic opportunities can inhibit efforts to promote economic growth and reduce poverty and decrease a country's economic growth trajectory, which is why the gender policy of the MCC requires gender inequalities to be identified and considered in every stage of agreements with participating countries; Whereas, according to the World Health Organization, global maternal mortality decreased by approximately 38 percent from 2000 to 2017, yet approximately 810 women and girls continue to die from preventable causes relating to pregnancy or childbirth each day, and 94 percent of all maternal deaths occur in developing countries, putting the global community off-track to meeting Sustainable Development Goal 3.1 for reducing maternal deaths; Whereas the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reports that women and girls comprise approximately \1/2\ of the 78,900,000 refugees and internally displaced or stateless individuals in the world; Whereas the Russian invasion of Ukraine that began on February 24, 2022, has resulted in a disproportionate number of women and children seeking safety outside of Ukraine; Whereas those women and girls, like women and girls in all humanitarian emergencies, including those subject to forced displacement, face increased and exacerbated vulnerabilities to-- (1) gender-based violence, including rape, child marriage, domestic violence, human trafficking, and sexual exploitation and assault; (2) disruptions in education and livelihood; (3) lack of access to health services; and (4) food insecurity and malnutrition; Whereas malnutrition poses a variety of threats to women and girls specifically, as malnutrition can weaken their immune systems, making them more susceptible to infections, and affects their capacity to survive childbirth, and children born of malnourished women and girls are more likely to have cognitive impairments and higher risk of disease throughout their lives; Whereas it is imperative-- (1) to alleviate violence and discrimination against women and girls; and (2) to afford women and girls every opportunity to be equal members of their communities; and Whereas March 8, 2023, is recognized as International Women's Day, a global day-- (1) to celebrate the economic, political, and social achievements of women in the past, present, and future; and (2) to recognize the obstacles that women face in the struggle for equal rights and opportunities: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) supports the goals of International Women's Day; (2) recognizes that the fundamental human rights of women and girls have intrinsic value that affect the quality of life of women and girls; (3) recognizes that the empowerment of women and girls is inextricably linked to the potential of a country to generate-- (A) economic growth and self-reliance; (B) sustainable peace and democracy; and (C) inclusive security; (4) recognizes and honors individuals in the United States and around the world, including women human rights defenders, activists, and civil society leaders, who have worked throughout history to ensure that women and girls are guaranteed equality and fundamental human rights; (5) applauds the women around the world who stand against oppression in any form and fight for a better future, especially in Ukraine, Iran, and Afghanistan; (6) recognizes the unique cultural, historical, and religious differences throughout the world and urges the United States Government to act with respect and understanding toward legitimate differences when promoting any policies; (7) reaffirms the commitment-- (A) to end discrimination and violence against women and girls; (B) to ensure the safety, health, and welfare of women and girls; (C) to pursue policies that guarantee the fundamental human rights of women and girls worldwide; and (D) to promote meaningful and significant participation of women in every aspect of society and community, including conflict prevention, protection, peacemaking, and peacebuilding; (8) supports sustainable, measurable, and global development that seeks to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls; and (9) encourages the people of the United States to observe International Women's Day with appropriate programs and activities. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-08-pt1-PgS718 | null | 5,968 |
formal | property rights | null | racist | SENATE RESOLUTION 99--SUPPORTING THE GOALS OF INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself, Ms. Collins, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Kaine, and Mr. Van Hollen) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 99 Whereas, as of March 2023, there are approximately 3,990,000,000 women and girls in the world, making up \1/2\ of the world's population; Whereas women and girls around the world-- (1) have fundamental human rights; (2) play a critical role in providing and caring for their families and driving positive change in their communities; (3) contribute substantially to food security, economic growth, the prevention and resolution of conflict, and the sustainability of peace and stability; (4) are affected in different and often disproportionate ways by global, country, and community circumstances, including economic downturns, global health concerns, conflict, and migration; and (5) must have meaningful protections and opportunities to more fully participate in and lead the political, social, and economic lives of their communities and countries; Whereas the advancement and empowerment of women and girls around the world is a foreign policy priority for the United States and is critical to the achievement of global peace, prosperity, and sustainability; Whereas, on October 6, 2017, the Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017 (22 U.S.C. 2152j et seq.) was enacted into law, which includes requirements for a government-wide ``Women, Peace, and Security Strategy'' to promote and strengthen the participation of women in peace negotiations and conflict prevention overseas, enhanced training for relevant United States Government personnel, and follow-up evaluations of the effectiveness of the strategy; Whereas the United States Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security, dated June 2019, recognizes that-- (1) the ``[s]ocial and political marginalization of women strongly correlates with the likelihood that a country will experience conflict''; (2) there is a ``tremendous amount of untapped potential among the world's women and girls to identify, recommend, and implement effective solutions to conflict'', and there are ``benefits derived from creating opportunities for women and girls to serve as agents of peace via political, economic, and social empowerment''; and (3) barriers to the meaningful participation of women and girls in conflict prevention and resolution efforts ``include under-representation in political leadership, pervasive violence against women and girls, and persistent inequality in many societies''; Whereas, according to the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (commonly referred to as ``UN Women''), peace negotiations are more likely to end in a peace agreement when women and women's groups play a meaningful role in the negotiation process; Whereas, according to a study by the International Peace Institute, a peace agreement is 35 percent more likely to last at least 15 years if women participate in the development of the peace agreement; Whereas, according to the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs of the Department of State, the full and meaningful participation of women in criminal justice professions and security forces vastly enhances the effectiveness of the resulting workforces; Whereas, despite the contributions of women to society, hundreds of millions of women and girls around the world continue to be denied the right to participate freely in civic and economic life, lack fundamental legal protections, and remain vulnerable to exploitation and abuse; Whereas, every year, approximately 12,000,000 girls are married before they reach the age of 18, which means that-- (1) nearly 33,000 girls are married every day; or (2) nearly 23 girls are married every minute; Whereas, despite global progress, it is predicted that by 2030 more than 150,000,000 more girls will marry before reaching the age of 18, and approximately 2,400,000 girls who are married before reaching the age of 18 are under the age of 15; Whereas girls living in countries affected by conflict or other humanitarian crises are often the most vulnerable to child marriage, and 9 of the 10 countries with the highest rates of child marriage are considered fragile or extremely fragile; Whereas, on August 15, 2021, the Taliban entered Kabul, Afghanistan, and toppled the elected government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, resulting in de facto Taliban rule over the people of Afghanistan; Whereas the Taliban continues to restrict the ability of women and girls to exist in Afghan society, including by-- (1) prohibiting girls from going to school past sixth grade, including banning women from attending university; (2) limiting the employment that women can pursue outside of their households; (3) mandating that women cover their heads and faces in public and punishing those who wear brightly colored clothing; (4) restricting the independent movement of women and girls; (5) closing domestic abuse shelters, sometimes forcing residents to return to their abusive families; (6) preventing women aid workers from operating in Afghanistan, thus restricting operations in support of humanitarian assistance for all Afghans; (7) jailing women human rights defenders; and (8) limiting access to women's healthcare, including preventative and emergency services, and requiring a male chaperone at most clinics and hospitals; Whereas, according to the United Nation's Children's Fund (commonly referred to as ``UNICEF'')-- (1) approximately \1/4\ of girls between the ages of 15 and 19 have been victims of some form of physical violence; (2) approximately 120,000,000 girls worldwide, about 1 in 10, have experienced forced sexual acts; and (3) an estimated 1 in 3 women around the world has experienced some form of physical or sexual violence; Whereas the overall level of violence against women is a better predictor of the peacefulness of a country, the compliance of a country with international treaty obligations, and the relations of a country with neighboring countries than indicators measuring the level of democracy, level of wealth, or level of institutionalization of the country; Whereas women around the world remain vastly underrepresented in government positions, as women account for only 25.6 percent of national parliamentarians and 21 percent of government ministers; Whereas the ability of women and girls to realize their full potential is critical to the ability of a country to achieve strong and lasting economic growth, self-reliance, and political and social stability; Whereas, although the United Nations Millennium Project reached the goal of achieving gender parity in primary education in most countries in 2015, the COVID-19 global pandemic has deepened gender inequality in education and more work remains to be done to achieve gender equality in primary and secondary education, particularly in secondary education worldwide as gender gaps persist and widen, by addressing-- (1) discriminatory practices; (2) harmful cultural and social norms; (3) inadequate sanitation facilities, including facilities to manage menstruation; (4) child, early, and forced marriage; (5) poverty; (6) food insecurity and malnutrition; (7) early pregnancy and motherhood; (8) conflict and insecurity; and (9) other factors that favor boys or devalue girls' education; Whereas, according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization-- (1) approximately 118,500,000 girls between the ages of 6 and 17 remain out of school; (2) girls living in countries affected by conflict are 2.5 times more likely to be out of primary school than boys; (3) girls are twice as likely as boys to never set foot in a classroom; and (4) up to 30 percent of girls who drop out of school do so because of adolescent pregnancy or child marriage; Whereas women around the world face a variety of constraints that severely limit their economic participation and productivity and remain underrepresented in the labor force; Whereas, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations-- (1) agriculture and food systems are a major source of livelihoods, particularly for rural women; (2) wage and productivity gaps persist in agriculture and food systems, despite the crucial role that women play in those sectors; (3) the work of women in agriculture and food systems is more likely than that of men to be part-time, irregular, informal, vulnerable, labor-intensive, and low-skilled; (4) in countries reporting on Sustainable Development Goal 5.a.1, more men than women are owners or have rights to agricultural land; (5) the gender gap in food insecurity is growing and has reached 4.3 percentage points, with more women experiencing severe and moderate food insecurity in all regions than men; and (6) the empowerment of women can have important benefits for agricultural productivity, nutrition, and food security; Whereas the economic empowerment of women is inextricably linked to a myriad of other internationally recognized human rights that are essential to the ability of women to thrive as economic actors, including-- (1) living lives free of violence and exploitation; (2) achieving the highest possible standard of health and well-being; (3) enjoying full legal and human rights, such as access to registration, identification, and citizenship documents, and freedom of movement; (4) access to formal and informal education; (5) access to, and equal protection under, land and property rights; (6) access to fundamental labor rights; (7) the implementation of policies to address disproportionate care burdens; and (8) receiving business and management skills and leadership opportunities; Whereas the Millennium Challenge Corporation (commonly referred to as the ``MCC''), an independent United States foreign assistance agency, recognizes that inequality and the exclusion of women from economic opportunities can inhibit efforts to promote economic growth and reduce poverty and decrease a country's economic growth trajectory, which is why the gender policy of the MCC requires gender inequalities to be identified and considered in every stage of agreements with participating countries; Whereas, according to the World Health Organization, global maternal mortality decreased by approximately 38 percent from 2000 to 2017, yet approximately 810 women and girls continue to die from preventable causes relating to pregnancy or childbirth each day, and 94 percent of all maternal deaths occur in developing countries, putting the global community off-track to meeting Sustainable Development Goal 3.1 for reducing maternal deaths; Whereas the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reports that women and girls comprise approximately \1/2\ of the 78,900,000 refugees and internally displaced or stateless individuals in the world; Whereas the Russian invasion of Ukraine that began on February 24, 2022, has resulted in a disproportionate number of women and children seeking safety outside of Ukraine; Whereas those women and girls, like women and girls in all humanitarian emergencies, including those subject to forced displacement, face increased and exacerbated vulnerabilities to-- (1) gender-based violence, including rape, child marriage, domestic violence, human trafficking, and sexual exploitation and assault; (2) disruptions in education and livelihood; (3) lack of access to health services; and (4) food insecurity and malnutrition; Whereas malnutrition poses a variety of threats to women and girls specifically, as malnutrition can weaken their immune systems, making them more susceptible to infections, and affects their capacity to survive childbirth, and children born of malnourished women and girls are more likely to have cognitive impairments and higher risk of disease throughout their lives; Whereas it is imperative-- (1) to alleviate violence and discrimination against women and girls; and (2) to afford women and girls every opportunity to be equal members of their communities; and Whereas March 8, 2023, is recognized as International Women's Day, a global day-- (1) to celebrate the economic, political, and social achievements of women in the past, present, and future; and (2) to recognize the obstacles that women face in the struggle for equal rights and opportunities: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) supports the goals of International Women's Day; (2) recognizes that the fundamental human rights of women and girls have intrinsic value that affect the quality of life of women and girls; (3) recognizes that the empowerment of women and girls is inextricably linked to the potential of a country to generate-- (A) economic growth and self-reliance; (B) sustainable peace and democracy; and (C) inclusive security; (4) recognizes and honors individuals in the United States and around the world, including women human rights defenders, activists, and civil society leaders, who have worked throughout history to ensure that women and girls are guaranteed equality and fundamental human rights; (5) applauds the women around the world who stand against oppression in any form and fight for a better future, especially in Ukraine, Iran, and Afghanistan; (6) recognizes the unique cultural, historical, and religious differences throughout the world and urges the United States Government to act with respect and understanding toward legitimate differences when promoting any policies; (7) reaffirms the commitment-- (A) to end discrimination and violence against women and girls; (B) to ensure the safety, health, and welfare of women and girls; (C) to pursue policies that guarantee the fundamental human rights of women and girls worldwide; and (D) to promote meaningful and significant participation of women in every aspect of society and community, including conflict prevention, protection, peacemaking, and peacebuilding; (8) supports sustainable, measurable, and global development that seeks to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls; and (9) encourages the people of the United States to observe International Women's Day with appropriate programs and activities. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-08-pt1-PgS718 | null | 5,969 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | SENATE RESOLUTION 99--SUPPORTING THE GOALS OF INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself, Ms. Collins, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Kaine, and Mr. Van Hollen) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 99 Whereas, as of March 2023, there are approximately 3,990,000,000 women and girls in the world, making up \1/2\ of the world's population; Whereas women and girls around the world-- (1) have fundamental human rights; (2) play a critical role in providing and caring for their families and driving positive change in their communities; (3) contribute substantially to food security, economic growth, the prevention and resolution of conflict, and the sustainability of peace and stability; (4) are affected in different and often disproportionate ways by global, country, and community circumstances, including economic downturns, global health concerns, conflict, and migration; and (5) must have meaningful protections and opportunities to more fully participate in and lead the political, social, and economic lives of their communities and countries; Whereas the advancement and empowerment of women and girls around the world is a foreign policy priority for the United States and is critical to the achievement of global peace, prosperity, and sustainability; Whereas, on October 6, 2017, the Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017 (22 U.S.C. 2152j et seq.) was enacted into law, which includes requirements for a government-wide ``Women, Peace, and Security Strategy'' to promote and strengthen the participation of women in peace negotiations and conflict prevention overseas, enhanced training for relevant United States Government personnel, and follow-up evaluations of the effectiveness of the strategy; Whereas the United States Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security, dated June 2019, recognizes that-- (1) the ``[s]ocial and political marginalization of women strongly correlates with the likelihood that a country will experience conflict''; (2) there is a ``tremendous amount of untapped potential among the world's women and girls to identify, recommend, and implement effective solutions to conflict'', and there are ``benefits derived from creating opportunities for women and girls to serve as agents of peace via political, economic, and social empowerment''; and (3) barriers to the meaningful participation of women and girls in conflict prevention and resolution efforts ``include under-representation in political leadership, pervasive violence against women and girls, and persistent inequality in many societies''; Whereas, according to the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (commonly referred to as ``UN Women''), peace negotiations are more likely to end in a peace agreement when women and women's groups play a meaningful role in the negotiation process; Whereas, according to a study by the International Peace Institute, a peace agreement is 35 percent more likely to last at least 15 years if women participate in the development of the peace agreement; Whereas, according to the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs of the Department of State, the full and meaningful participation of women in criminal justice professions and security forces vastly enhances the effectiveness of the resulting workforces; Whereas, despite the contributions of women to society, hundreds of millions of women and girls around the world continue to be denied the right to participate freely in civic and economic life, lack fundamental legal protections, and remain vulnerable to exploitation and abuse; Whereas, every year, approximately 12,000,000 girls are married before they reach the age of 18, which means that-- (1) nearly 33,000 girls are married every day; or (2) nearly 23 girls are married every minute; Whereas, despite global progress, it is predicted that by 2030 more than 150,000,000 more girls will marry before reaching the age of 18, and approximately 2,400,000 girls who are married before reaching the age of 18 are under the age of 15; Whereas girls living in countries affected by conflict or other humanitarian crises are often the most vulnerable to child marriage, and 9 of the 10 countries with the highest rates of child marriage are considered fragile or extremely fragile; Whereas, on August 15, 2021, the Taliban entered Kabul, Afghanistan, and toppled the elected government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, resulting in de facto Taliban rule over the people of Afghanistan; Whereas the Taliban continues to restrict the ability of women and girls to exist in Afghan society, including by-- (1) prohibiting girls from going to school past sixth grade, including banning women from attending university; (2) limiting the employment that women can pursue outside of their households; (3) mandating that women cover their heads and faces in public and punishing those who wear brightly colored clothing; (4) restricting the independent movement of women and girls; (5) closing domestic abuse shelters, sometimes forcing residents to return to their abusive families; (6) preventing women aid workers from operating in Afghanistan, thus restricting operations in support of humanitarian assistance for all Afghans; (7) jailing women human rights defenders; and (8) limiting access to women's healthcare, including preventative and emergency services, and requiring a male chaperone at most clinics and hospitals; Whereas, according to the United Nation's Children's Fund (commonly referred to as ``UNICEF'')-- (1) approximately \1/4\ of girls between the ages of 15 and 19 have been victims of some form of physical violence; (2) approximately 120,000,000 girls worldwide, about 1 in 10, have experienced forced sexual acts; and (3) an estimated 1 in 3 women around the world has experienced some form of physical or sexual violence; Whereas the overall level of violence against women is a better predictor of the peacefulness of a country, the compliance of a country with international treaty obligations, and the relations of a country with neighboring countries than indicators measuring the level of democracy, level of wealth, or level of institutionalization of the country; Whereas women around the world remain vastly underrepresented in government positions, as women account for only 25.6 percent of national parliamentarians and 21 percent of government ministers; Whereas the ability of women and girls to realize their full potential is critical to the ability of a country to achieve strong and lasting economic growth, self-reliance, and political and social stability; Whereas, although the United Nations Millennium Project reached the goal of achieving gender parity in primary education in most countries in 2015, the COVID-19 global pandemic has deepened gender inequality in education and more work remains to be done to achieve gender equality in primary and secondary education, particularly in secondary education worldwide as gender gaps persist and widen, by addressing-- (1) discriminatory practices; (2) harmful cultural and social norms; (3) inadequate sanitation facilities, including facilities to manage menstruation; (4) child, early, and forced marriage; (5) poverty; (6) food insecurity and malnutrition; (7) early pregnancy and motherhood; (8) conflict and insecurity; and (9) other factors that favor boys or devalue girls' education; Whereas, according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization-- (1) approximately 118,500,000 girls between the ages of 6 and 17 remain out of school; (2) girls living in countries affected by conflict are 2.5 times more likely to be out of primary school than boys; (3) girls are twice as likely as boys to never set foot in a classroom; and (4) up to 30 percent of girls who drop out of school do so because of adolescent pregnancy or child marriage; Whereas women around the world face a variety of constraints that severely limit their economic participation and productivity and remain underrepresented in the labor force; Whereas, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations-- (1) agriculture and food systems are a major source of livelihoods, particularly for rural women; (2) wage and productivity gaps persist in agriculture and food systems, despite the crucial role that women play in those sectors; (3) the work of women in agriculture and food systems is more likely than that of men to be part-time, irregular, informal, vulnerable, labor-intensive, and low-skilled; (4) in countries reporting on Sustainable Development Goal 5.a.1, more men than women are owners or have rights to agricultural land; (5) the gender gap in food insecurity is growing and has reached 4.3 percentage points, with more women experiencing severe and moderate food insecurity in all regions than men; and (6) the empowerment of women can have important benefits for agricultural productivity, nutrition, and food security; Whereas the economic empowerment of women is inextricably linked to a myriad of other internationally recognized human rights that are essential to the ability of women to thrive as economic actors, including-- (1) living lives free of violence and exploitation; (2) achieving the highest possible standard of health and well-being; (3) enjoying full legal and human rights, such as access to registration, identification, and citizenship documents, and freedom of movement; (4) access to formal and informal education; (5) access to, and equal protection under, land and property rights; (6) access to fundamental labor rights; (7) the implementation of policies to address disproportionate care burdens; and (8) receiving business and management skills and leadership opportunities; Whereas the Millennium Challenge Corporation (commonly referred to as the ``MCC''), an independent United States foreign assistance agency, recognizes that inequality and the exclusion of women from economic opportunities can inhibit efforts to promote economic growth and reduce poverty and decrease a country's economic growth trajectory, which is why the gender policy of the MCC requires gender inequalities to be identified and considered in every stage of agreements with participating countries; Whereas, according to the World Health Organization, global maternal mortality decreased by approximately 38 percent from 2000 to 2017, yet approximately 810 women and girls continue to die from preventable causes relating to pregnancy or childbirth each day, and 94 percent of all maternal deaths occur in developing countries, putting the global community off-track to meeting Sustainable Development Goal 3.1 for reducing maternal deaths; Whereas the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reports that women and girls comprise approximately \1/2\ of the 78,900,000 refugees and internally displaced or stateless individuals in the world; Whereas the Russian invasion of Ukraine that began on February 24, 2022, has resulted in a disproportionate number of women and children seeking safety outside of Ukraine; Whereas those women and girls, like women and girls in all humanitarian emergencies, including those subject to forced displacement, face increased and exacerbated vulnerabilities to-- (1) gender-based violence, including rape, child marriage, domestic violence, human trafficking, and sexual exploitation and assault; (2) disruptions in education and livelihood; (3) lack of access to health services; and (4) food insecurity and malnutrition; Whereas malnutrition poses a variety of threats to women and girls specifically, as malnutrition can weaken their immune systems, making them more susceptible to infections, and affects their capacity to survive childbirth, and children born of malnourished women and girls are more likely to have cognitive impairments and higher risk of disease throughout their lives; Whereas it is imperative-- (1) to alleviate violence and discrimination against women and girls; and (2) to afford women and girls every opportunity to be equal members of their communities; and Whereas March 8, 2023, is recognized as International Women's Day, a global day-- (1) to celebrate the economic, political, and social achievements of women in the past, present, and future; and (2) to recognize the obstacles that women face in the struggle for equal rights and opportunities: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) supports the goals of International Women's Day; (2) recognizes that the fundamental human rights of women and girls have intrinsic value that affect the quality of life of women and girls; (3) recognizes that the empowerment of women and girls is inextricably linked to the potential of a country to generate-- (A) economic growth and self-reliance; (B) sustainable peace and democracy; and (C) inclusive security; (4) recognizes and honors individuals in the United States and around the world, including women human rights defenders, activists, and civil society leaders, who have worked throughout history to ensure that women and girls are guaranteed equality and fundamental human rights; (5) applauds the women around the world who stand against oppression in any form and fight for a better future, especially in Ukraine, Iran, and Afghanistan; (6) recognizes the unique cultural, historical, and religious differences throughout the world and urges the United States Government to act with respect and understanding toward legitimate differences when promoting any policies; (7) reaffirms the commitment-- (A) to end discrimination and violence against women and girls; (B) to ensure the safety, health, and welfare of women and girls; (C) to pursue policies that guarantee the fundamental human rights of women and girls worldwide; and (D) to promote meaningful and significant participation of women in every aspect of society and community, including conflict prevention, protection, peacemaking, and peacebuilding; (8) supports sustainable, measurable, and global development that seeks to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls; and (9) encourages the people of the United States to observe International Women's Day with appropriate programs and activities. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-08-pt1-PgS718 | null | 5,970 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. ROUNDS. Madam President, I rise today to ask a unanimous consent request on S. 650. This is a bill that I have introduced with Senator Hirono that would extend the Federal Communications Commission's spectrum auction authority until the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 2023. Currently, this authority is set to expire tomorrow night. Our legislation would prevent this expiration and allow the Department of Defense and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to focus on a statutorily required study which is to be completed by September of this year. This will define DOD spectrum requirements and articulate the risks should the Department lose access to portions of the 3.1 to 3.45 gigahertz frequencies that are home to systems that are used to defend our country from attack. The extension of this authorization until September 30 would allow time for the DOD and the NTIA to complete their study which, as I say, is expected in September. We cannot allow potential authorizing spectrum legislation to affect any decision making related to the lower 3 gigahertz band before the DOD and the NTIA release their study, which is expected, as I say, in September. The FCC's spectrum auction authority was previously extended less than just 3 months ago. Unfortunately, each time this auction authority expires at short and arbitrary intervals, we find additional language being proposed that would modify the current process by which any sharing of this spectrum would be determined. The Department of Defense finds itself responding to proposals that include offering up for auction critical bands of spectrum before this study has been completed. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 requires the Department of Defense to conclude the spectrum study by September 2023. Importantly, the study mandates examination of the feasibility of DOD sharing the 3.1 to 3.45 gigahertz band of spectrum, which is a very limited resource with the industry. The extension which I call up today would make certain that the analysis of the study is completed before taking action or before actions could be taken which may potentially harm the national security of the United States. While the development of 5G networks is important to both the economic prosperity and national security of the United States, the premature auction of spectrum must not jeopardize the systems that depend on radars and other critical sensors to protect our troops and our citizens from air or missile attacks. Many of the reasons that make an extension until the end of the fiscal year vital simply can't be discussed here on the Senate floor because they need to be taken in a classified setting. Over the past several months, I hosted a series of classified and unclassified briefings for my colleagues, their congressional staff members, the telecom industry, and the defense industry. These briefings were delivered by both the Department of Defense and the NTIA. I think we all want to see the FCC's spectrum auction authority extended, and I am offering a solution that extends that auction authority and protects the national security of our country. I would hope that the industry and those who support the continuation of 5G would agree that an extension until the end of the year would be very appropriate. With that, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 650 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. ROUNDS | Senate | CREC-2023-03-08-pt1-PgS720-2 | null | 5,971 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. WELCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1108, to extend the Federal Communications Commission's authority to auction spectrum. Congress has never let the FCC's spectrum auction authority lapse before, and we can't do it now. As I noted in my earlier comments, spectrum is critical to our modern communications system--something that, actually, Senator Rounds has spoken so eloquently to--so we have to keep it going. We need an FCC and an NTIA that respect all Federal incumbent uses of spectrum, especially those uses that protect our national security. Again, I acknowledge the comments of Senator Rounds. As we consider the reauthorization of the FCC's auction authority, it is important to recognize we are entering a really new era in the United States' spectrum strategy. This new strategy has to be comprehensive to ensure our remaining spectrum is put to its highest and best use, and we must ensure we don't impact or interfere with our national security as we try to get further benefits from the civilian sector for spectrum utilization. H.R. 1108's 2-month extension would allow for the further development of this comprehensive approach. As I mentioned earlier, folks are really working on that, and we don't want to take the pressure off. We want to keep the pedal to the metal and see if they can reach an agreement. Importantly, H.R. 1108's 2-month extension does not slow down or otherwise limit the Department of Defense's study of the lower 3 gigahertz band under the bipartisan infrastructure law. I just want to reiterate that. The DOD can continue with its study. It will remain on track to complete its study by September 30. This extension also doesn't change the requirement that any reallocation decisions for the band must wait until after the DOD finishes its study. So there is consensus here that we have to make certain the DOD's national security equities are front and center. What this extension would do is to ensure that the critical work of our Agencies and wireless ecosystem does continue undisrupted. Maintaining the FCC's auction authority will allow Congress to work quickly toward developing forward-thinking spectrum policy that both protects our national security and encourages the development of new technologies. It is very important, especially now that time is of the essence, for us to develop our own spectrum strategy and stay ahead of our competitors. So every month that we stall on a comprehensive spectrum bill is more time for our rivals to get ahead of us. For all of those reasons, I am asking my colleagues to support H.R. 1108's 2-month extension of the FCC's auction authority as my colleagues and I work toward a comprehensive spectrum legislation package to ensure that the United States continues to lead in spectrum innovation and policy. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1108, which was received from the House and is at the desk; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WELCH | Senate | CREC-2023-03-08-pt1-PgS721 | null | 5,972 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I am coming to the floor for the final time to give remarks about the Willow Project. I will explain it a little bit in my remarks. The President is getting ready to make a decision--a huge decision--on a big project in Alaska--really, an inflection point for our State's future. He is likely to make that decision any day. So I am just going to come down and kind of wrap up the arguments that we have been making. I really want to thank a number of folks: Senator Murkowski, of course, who, with me--we have been focused on this issue for 2 years, the entire time of the Biden administration--2 years, arguments every day, including a meeting with the President last week, last Thursday; Congresswoman Peltola, who has done a really strong job in this regard, particularly in the meeting last week with the President. Some of my Democratic colleagues have been weighing in on this project. I really appreciate that. I know it takes a lot of courage. I am going to talk about some of the far-left lower 48 environmental groups that don't support it based on nothing--no facts, no data. But stand up to them, go to the White House and say: Come on, Mr. President. Come on, Biden administration. You have to make sure Alaska has this. So my Democrat colleagues, I am not going to name you. I don't want to get you in trouble or anything, but thank you. I really, really appreciate this. As I mentioned, we had a meeting with the President last week, and, at the beginning of the meeting, in addition to handing the President a unanimous resolution from the entire Alaska Legislature--the entire State senate, the entire State house; Democrats, Republicans, Independents; Native, non-Native--all passed a resolution saying to the Biden administration: Please support the Willow Project. There were three pads. I handed that to the President. I also handed him this map that describes really the context, as I said to the President, of what is happening in Alaska under this administration. I was respectful. We were in the Oval Office. Of course, you are going to be respectful with the President and his team. The Oval Office is a very historic place, obviously. But I said, respectfully: Mr. President, in every region of the State, every industry--oil, gas, mining, hunting, fishing; you name it--there have been 45 Executive orders and Executive actions--it is now 46; there has been another one since the meeting we had last week--looking to shut down Alaska. It is exhausting, to be honest. No other State is getting that kind of attention. I walked through some of these, but I just, again, respectfully, wanted the President to know, and that is it. Every time we meet with senior White House officials and say--these are the days we have met with senior White House officials--``Hey, how about a ceasefire?'' we just get more, more. There is no other State in the country getting this kind of attention. It is unwanted attention. As I have told many of my Democratic colleagues, hey, if a Republican administration came after you like this, singling your State out, putting thousands of people out of work, and you came to me and said, ``Hey, Dan, could you help me?'' I would help you. Every Democrat here knows I would help you. So I appreciate the help that we are getting. That was the context of the meeting. Again, it was respectful. We appreciated it. We had over an hour with the President and his team. He is a busy, busy man, the leader of the free world. So we appreciated that. (Ms. HASSAN assumed the Chair.) I was also recently down in Houston at this very big energy conference called CERAWeek. To be honest, it is not an exaggeration to say that all eyes are on the Willow Project because, essentially, the question that is being posed in our energy sector is this. There was a very good Wall Street Journal editorial last week calling the Willow Project the test for Biden. This editorial lead by saying that the ``President . . . says the only barrier to more U.S. oil production is recalcitrant'' companies. OK, a lot of us don't believe that, by the way. So here is an opportunity to say: Is that true or not? Because if the Biden administration--the President--approves Willow tonight, ConocoPhillips will start moving people to build it tomorrow. We are ready. The State is ready. The private sector is ready. So I think that is the key question, and it was the key question down inCERAWeek, the biggest energy conference probably in the world, with almost 8,000 attendees. This is a really important question, not just for Alaska but for America. I think the key arguments here are, given the President's priorities, what the President emphasizes, what he and his administration talk about. The Willow Project is actually exactly the kind of project President Biden and his team should support because it reinforces so many things that they talk about and care about. Let me just mention four of those. No. 1, which, of course, is really important, is that this project has the highest environmental standards of any major energy project in the world, by far. It is not even a close call. How do we know this? Because the Biden administration's own environmental impact statement, which came out a month ago, says this. It says this. The Trump administration passed this project in their environmental reviews with flying colors. Then, it was five pads. The Biden administration's EIS, or environmental impact statement, took it down to three. We didn't really like that, but that is about the minimum it could go. And they explained in this administration's own environmental impact statement--the scientists, the career staff were saying things like that the greenhouse gas emissions would be ``minimal,'' not a climate bomb like these lower 48 far-left groups keep talking about--minimal. Here is the number: Emissions from this project, according to President Biden's own environmental impact statement, 0.15 percent, the 2019 emission levels. And they call it ``minimal.'' They also said if you don't do the Willow Project, the market substitution analysis in the Biden administration's own EIS says that, then, we will likely--we, America--have to go to other countries--Saudi Arabia, Venezuela--to get oil, and their environmental records and standards are so bad that the emissions globally from not doing this project will actually rise. That is in the EIS. I have talked about the high standards for Alaska with regard to the high standards in the world and the impacts on the environment. By the way, this project is next to existing infrastructure. So you don't have to build a lot of infrastructure. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline, just plug it in. This has the highest environmental standards in the world. How do I know that? Because the Biden administration's environmental impact statement lays it out in about 1,500 pages. That is one very important argument that fits with the Biden administration's priorities. Let me give you another one. The Biden administration frequently talks about racial equity, racial justice, environmental justice for people of color, indigenous people. They talk about that all the time. The indigenous people in my State overwhelmingly support this project. There are a few people--and that happens in every State, in every country--who are opposed. They are getting a lot of press, by the way. But the vast majority of the people, the First Nations' people, the Alaska Native people in our State, strongly support this. We held a press conference last week here in the Capitol. Some of the most famous Alaska Native leaders in our State's history flew thousands of miles just to be here to support this. So all this rhetoric from the administration on racial equity, racial justice is going to be very empty if they say: Do you know what? We are going to choose the Center for Biological Diversity and Greenpeace's priorities in the lower 48 over the priorities of the people who live there. I want to go into this a little bit deeper. This is a quote from the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat. This is a group of Tribes and Native leaders, a really broad-based group of the people who live where this project would be. Here is a quote from Nagruk Harcharek: Outside activist groups opposing Willow have drowned out local perspective-- That is for sure-- and are actively working to supersede the views of the Alaska Native people. That is for sure. This is not environmental justice or any kind of justice. It is a direct attack on Alaska Native self-determination. Some of our Native leaders last week were saying: Do you know what really is infuriating? These lower 48 environmental groups that are all driving the opposition of this project, are trying to tell Alaska Natives who have lived in Alaska for thousands and thousands of years how to live and what is good for them. Do you know what some of our Native leaders are starting to call this? The second wave of colonialism, eco-colonialism. Condescending lower 48 environmental groups that don't know anything about Alaska are coming up to our State and telling the Native people how to live--eco-colonialism. By the way, that topic came up in the Oval Office meeting. The administration is going to listen to lower 48 environmental groups that condescendingly tell Alaska Native people how to live? That is certainly not racial equity. That is certainly not racial justice. That is the definition of eco-colonialism, and I hope that they are not going to go there. One other area, another great group of Americans, whom I love to talk about on the floor who support this project, are the great men and women who build things in America. There has been no better champion of that in the entire country than the president of the Laborers, my good friend, Terry O'Sullivan, who, just 2 days ago, wrote another letter to the President. He has been such a great advocate. The Laborers are the greatest construction union in America. This project will create 2,500 jobs, 75 percent of which are union jobs, building trade jobs. Madam President, I would like to submit for the Record another great letter from Terry O'Sullivan. This one is dated March 6, 2023, to the President of the United States. I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the Record. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SULLIVAN | Senate | CREC-2023-03-08-pt1-PgS723-4 | null | 5,973 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. Votes will be taken in the following order: Adoption of the motion to recommit on H.R. 140; Passage of H.R. 140, if ordered; and Passage of H.J. Res. 27. 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-2023-03-09-pt1-PgH1230-3 | null | 5,974 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to recommit on the bill (H.R. 140) to amend title 5, United States Code, to prohibit Federal employees from advocating for censorship of viewpoints in their official capacity, and for other purposes, offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman), on which the yeas and nays were ordered. The Clerk will redesignate the motion. The Clerk redesignated the motion. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-03-09-pt1-PgH1230-4 | null | 5,975 |
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. 27) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Revised Definition of `Waters of the United States''', on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-03-09-pt1-PgH1232 | null | 5,976 |
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-2023-03-09-pt1-PgH1249 | null | 5,977 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. CLYDE: H.J. Res. 42. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article 1, Sec, 8, Clause 16 of the U.S. Constitution states: The Congress shall have the power to ``Excercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoeverm over such District (not exceeding 10 Miles square, as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States.'' The single subject of this legislation is: This bill pertains to DC matters | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-03-09-pt1-PgH1251-18 | null | 5,978 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, on the President's budget, today, as we all know, President Biden will release his budget for fiscal year 2024. As promised, the President's budget is set to be a bold, optimistic, and serious proposal for strengthening our economy and creating opportunities to climb into the middle class as well as helping people stay there once they get in the middle class. The President's budget succeeds where Republicans have failed by presenting a realistic blueprint for lowering the deficit without cutting benefits tens of millions of Americans rely upon. Unlike the Republicans, the President's plan actually protects Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid while building on Democrats' work to lower prescription drug costs and save taxpayer dollars. Again, Republicans love to talk about deficit cuts and saving tax dollars, but Democrats are the ones actually getting it done. The President's budget prioritizes a strong defense. It offers robust support for Ukraine, which, after last night's brutal missile barrage, remains as urgent as ever. Unlike Republicans, the President's plan invests in America instead of starving it. The President's budget invests in advanced manufacturing and high-tech jobs and scientific research, job training, education, and apprenticeships. The President's budget asks the wealthiest Americans to pay just a little more of their fair share in taxes so that programs like Medicare remain solvent for decades. Just about all Americans think this is just plain fair because there is no justification for the ultrawealthy to have a lower tax burden on a percentage basis than teachers and nurses and cabdrivers and firefighters. I want to thank President Biden for laying down an optimistic, forward-thinking vision for our country. This is what Americans want. They want real stuff. They want positive thinking about the future, help for those in the middle class to stay there, and for those struggling to get to the middle class, to make it a little easier to get there. But I really want to thank my Republican colleagues who have done a great job in highlighting all of the ways they want to cut health programs and give the ultrarich yet another payday. I am impressed at how effectively Republicans are making the argument on Democrats' behalf because, while Democrats want to help average Americans, a group of House Republicans is working right now with former Trump Budget Director Russell Vought to carry out a budget outline with drastic cuts that would harm tens of millions of people. Vought is a hard-right guy. He hates government even when it helps people. According to the New York Times, Republicans in the House are considering proposals that would cut hundreds of billions from everything from the FBI to things like Pell grant eligibility and even Medicaid. I recently saw--catch this, Madam President. I recently saw one House Republican frame spending cuts as a matter of courage. That is what one House Republican said. Well, there is nothing courageous about taking SNAP benefits away from hungry kids. There is nothing courageous about cutting national security or constricting Pell grant eligibility. There is nothing courageous about cutting housing and funding for police and firefighters while doing nothing--nothing--to get wealthy Americans to pay their fair share. How dare Republicans say it is courageous to make those cuts. Finally, the ball is now in Speaker McCarthy's court. Today is March 9, and there is still one big question all of us are asking: Speaker McCarthy, where is your plan? The debt ceiling must be raised soon. House Republicans say they won't do it without painful cuts to our country, which Democrats fiercely reject, but to this day, Americans have no idea where Republicans truly stand on Federal spending cuts, whether it is dealing with the debt ceiling or proposing a budget itself. All we have are various proposals like Mr. Vought's, which, if passed, would wreck our country and do huge damage to working families. Speaker McCarthy, again, where is your plan? Where is your plan in regard to the debt ceiling? Where is your plan in regard to the budget? The President has done his job by showing where Democrats stand. Speaker McCarthy needs to come clean with the American people and spell out precisely what cuts he plans and explain how these cuts will put the pain on average families. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-03-09-pt1-PgS727-8 | null | 5,979 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, on the President's budget, today, as we all know, President Biden will release his budget for fiscal year 2024. As promised, the President's budget is set to be a bold, optimistic, and serious proposal for strengthening our economy and creating opportunities to climb into the middle class as well as helping people stay there once they get in the middle class. The President's budget succeeds where Republicans have failed by presenting a realistic blueprint for lowering the deficit without cutting benefits tens of millions of Americans rely upon. Unlike the Republicans, the President's plan actually protects Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid while building on Democrats' work to lower prescription drug costs and save taxpayer dollars. Again, Republicans love to talk about deficit cuts and saving tax dollars, but Democrats are the ones actually getting it done. The President's budget prioritizes a strong defense. It offers robust support for Ukraine, which, after last night's brutal missile barrage, remains as urgent as ever. Unlike Republicans, the President's plan invests in America instead of starving it. The President's budget invests in advanced manufacturing and high-tech jobs and scientific research, job training, education, and apprenticeships. The President's budget asks the wealthiest Americans to pay just a little more of their fair share in taxes so that programs like Medicare remain solvent for decades. Just about all Americans think this is just plain fair because there is no justification for the ultrawealthy to have a lower tax burden on a percentage basis than teachers and nurses and cabdrivers and firefighters. I want to thank President Biden for laying down an optimistic, forward-thinking vision for our country. This is what Americans want. They want real stuff. They want positive thinking about the future, help for those in the middle class to stay there, and for those struggling to get to the middle class, to make it a little easier to get there. But I really want to thank my Republican colleagues who have done a great job in highlighting all of the ways they want to cut health programs and give the ultrarich yet another payday. I am impressed at how effectively Republicans are making the argument on Democrats' behalf because, while Democrats want to help average Americans, a group of House Republicans is working right now with former Trump Budget Director Russell Vought to carry out a budget outline with drastic cuts that would harm tens of millions of people. Vought is a hard-right guy. He hates government even when it helps people. According to the New York Times, Republicans in the House are considering proposals that would cut hundreds of billions from everything from the FBI to things like Pell grant eligibility and even Medicaid. I recently saw--catch this, Madam President. I recently saw one House Republican frame spending cuts as a matter of courage. That is what one House Republican said. Well, there is nothing courageous about taking SNAP benefits away from hungry kids. There is nothing courageous about cutting national security or constricting Pell grant eligibility. There is nothing courageous about cutting housing and funding for police and firefighters while doing nothing--nothing--to get wealthy Americans to pay their fair share. How dare Republicans say it is courageous to make those cuts. Finally, the ball is now in Speaker McCarthy's court. Today is March 9, and there is still one big question all of us are asking: Speaker McCarthy, where is your plan? The debt ceiling must be raised soon. House Republicans say they won't do it without painful cuts to our country, which Democrats fiercely reject, but to this day, Americans have no idea where Republicans truly stand on Federal spending cuts, whether it is dealing with the debt ceiling or proposing a budget itself. All we have are various proposals like Mr. Vought's, which, if passed, would wreck our country and do huge damage to working families. Speaker McCarthy, again, where is your plan? Where is your plan in regard to the debt ceiling? Where is your plan in regard to the budget? The President has done his job by showing where Democrats stand. Speaker McCarthy needs to come clean with the American people and spell out precisely what cuts he plans and explain how these cuts will put the pain on average families. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-03-09-pt1-PgS727-8 | null | 5,980 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Child Labor Mr. President, on another topic, when you stop by the grocery store to pick up your favorite box of cereal or some chicken breasts for dinner, would you ever guess you were buying a product that had been produced by exploited children? Not in America. Not in 2023. Sorry, I am afraid it is so. Last week, the New York Times ran an extremely important article about an investigation on what it deemed the ``new economy of exploitation.'' That economy is powered by young migrant children who arrived in this country without their parents and are working at unthinkably dangerous jobs in the American economy. But the exploitation is not limited to migrant children. In factories across the country, from North Carolina to South Dakota, children as young as 12 years of age--that is right, 12 years of age--are working in the dead of night, in some of the most grueling environments imaginable: freezing cold slaughterhouses and auto part assembly plants--12 years old. These children work as long as 12 hours per shift, and, for migrant children, many are under pressure to send money back home or to pay back the criminals who smuggled them across the border. Often, these children go to school in the morning because they are trying to learn to speak English and get an education. How can you learn when you are running on no sleep? Mr. President, I have some personal familiarity with some of these working conditions. When I was a college student, I worked two or three summers to pay my way through college. One of the jobs was on the railroad, a tradition in my family. Fortunately for me, I only have a minor scar to show for my time in the switchyard, but many others were not so lucky. The other job I had while I worked my way through college was in a meatpacking facility. I spent four summers there. I saw almost every aspect of that type of environment. I cannot imagine a 12-year-old in that dangerous environment. So when I hear young children are working long hours in meatpacking plants and slaughterhouses, it is beyond horrifying. It is beyond unconscionable, and it has to end. These accounts of children working in slaughterhouses and factories are not only shocking; they are blatantly unlawful in America. Our Nation outlawed oppressive child labor almost 100 years ago. This is a problem that should be relegated to history books or novels by Dickens, but it is not. In fact, since 2018, there has been a nearly 70-percent increase in illegally employed children. When the number of children being forced to work dangerous and potentially deadly jobs is on the rise, it is clear that our child labor laws are not up to speed. Let me add the obvious. This is another condemnation of the failure of our immigration policy in America. Consider the fact that people desperately need workers--desperately. In every corner of my State of Illinois, they tell me one after the other: We need more police. We need more firefighters. We need more ambulance drivers. We need more healthcare workers. We need more workers in our nursing home--and on and on and on. And why are we facing these shortages? We are facing them because, for 4years under President Trump, we stopped allowing legal migration into the United States, as we had in previous years, so fewer and fewer of these immigrant workers who are available to take on jobs that Americans are not waiting in line to fill. Behind the swinging doors of most of the restaurants and at some of the hotels in the city of Chicago were undocumented workers filling jobs which no one on the other side of that door would be interested in. So when we don't have a legal system to allow migration to come to this country and to fill the jobs, this is what happens. Yesterday, I had a meeting with the Illinois Farm Bureau. I meet with them every year. There were about a dozen farmers from all across my State. I know politically who they are. They are great people. They are not necessarily of my political party or my political faith. But they all said the same thing: Senator, we need workers on our farms. Dairy farms, livestock operations, orchards--farms that need workers every single day, and they don't have them. They said: Don't tell us that we ought to go into town and get the kids in high school to be our next generation of workers. They are just not interested, and they are not filling the jobs. And if we don't fill these jobs, these conservative, politically, farmers are going to find their farming operations paying a heavy price for it. Why in the world can't we acknowledge the obvious? The obvious is that, if we have an orderly process to screen people to come work into the United States from various countries, we can stop seeing the onslaught of thousands coming to our border. We have already seen this happening in specific instances through the Department of Homeland Security. We ought to be enhancing it and increasing it. I joined Senator Schatz last week when it came to this issue of child exploitation. He introduced a bill that would significantly expand and strengthen penalties for companies violating child labor laws. Let the word go out as clearly as it can from the floor of the U.S. Senate: If you have a business and you are exploiting children, you are in trouble. You are breaking the law, and you are going to pay a price for it. It is just not acceptable. So don't use the excuse that you didn't know. Find out. It would also apply these penalties to independent contractors. That is really important because some employers have managed to exploit children by hiring them through staffing agencies in an effort to avoid fines. Our bill would end this despicable practice. When a company hires little kids to work on a fast-paced assembly line, where these kids can be injured and even have their lives endangered, or when a company hires children to debone chickens or inhale toxic chemicals in an auto factory, a small fine and a slap on the wrist just won't do. We need to impose serious penalties on these companies so they will never hire exploited children ever again. That is what this bill wants to do. Importantly, the investigation from the New York Times illustrates that the humanitarian crisis in this country is rooted in the failure of this broken immigration system. From migrant children to farm workers, to families living under the threat of deportation, there are millions of people living in the shadows in this country and being exploited right under our noses. For those who entered the United States and are allowed to legally stay until their hearing date, there is a loophole in the law which makes life for them, in a legal way, almost impossible. Many of these people, though legally in the United States waiting for their asylum hearing, cannot legally work in the United States, depending on their circumstances, for 6 months to a year. What are they supposed to do? They want to work. There are jobs that need to be filled. We should find a way to do this in an orderly fashion. The Times reporting made it clear that unaccompanied migrant children are extremely vulnerable to exploitation. That just stands to reason. Our Federal Agencies have to do more to protect them. Finally, I want to acknowledge a broader truth about the State of our economy. It is no secret that employers throughout the country are struggling to find workers in Illinois, New Mexico--everywhere. There are 11 million job openings in America and not nearly enough workers to fill them. It is disturbing that some Republican State lawmakers have suggested loosening the child labor laws to fill these openings. To them, I suggest they read that New York Times piece and imagine if it was your child or grandchild. Do we want kids skipping school to sit in a factory for 12 hours sewing socks or shivering in an industrial freezer? Is that any way to care for kids, whoever they may be, or to prepare the next generation of leaders in our country--the doctors, the educators, the citizens? Of course not. The fact is, the quickest and most sensible way to address the labor shortage in our country is to fix the broken immigration system. Let's stop dancing around it. Let's face the music. We need to give undocumented immigrants living in the shadows a chance to be legal, and we should increase the number of working-age immigrants in this country by establishing new, thoughtful pathways for workers to legally enter America. We should pair this effort with new funding to bring order to the border. That is a priority. I share it with our Republican colleagues who talk about that almost exclusively. The fact that American companies are turning to children to address our Nation's labor shortage is a national disgrace. We bear responsibility right here in the U.S. Senate. We were elected to solve problems just like this. How many years have we been sitting back and saying the immigration system is broken; we have to change the laws? I will tell you: More than 30 years. Employers are counting on us to fix the immigration laws from both parties so workers can enter the markets in a legal and safe way. Unless Congress finally comes together to reform immigration in a bipartisan manner, these human rights abuses and embarrassment to our Nation will continue. What are we waiting for? Let's get it done. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-09-pt1-PgS730-2 | null | 5,981 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Child Labor Mr. President, on another topic, when you stop by the grocery store to pick up your favorite box of cereal or some chicken breasts for dinner, would you ever guess you were buying a product that had been produced by exploited children? Not in America. Not in 2023. Sorry, I am afraid it is so. Last week, the New York Times ran an extremely important article about an investigation on what it deemed the ``new economy of exploitation.'' That economy is powered by young migrant children who arrived in this country without their parents and are working at unthinkably dangerous jobs in the American economy. But the exploitation is not limited to migrant children. In factories across the country, from North Carolina to South Dakota, children as young as 12 years of age--that is right, 12 years of age--are working in the dead of night, in some of the most grueling environments imaginable: freezing cold slaughterhouses and auto part assembly plants--12 years old. These children work as long as 12 hours per shift, and, for migrant children, many are under pressure to send money back home or to pay back the criminals who smuggled them across the border. Often, these children go to school in the morning because they are trying to learn to speak English and get an education. How can you learn when you are running on no sleep? Mr. President, I have some personal familiarity with some of these working conditions. When I was a college student, I worked two or three summers to pay my way through college. One of the jobs was on the railroad, a tradition in my family. Fortunately for me, I only have a minor scar to show for my time in the switchyard, but many others were not so lucky. The other job I had while I worked my way through college was in a meatpacking facility. I spent four summers there. I saw almost every aspect of that type of environment. I cannot imagine a 12-year-old in that dangerous environment. So when I hear young children are working long hours in meatpacking plants and slaughterhouses, it is beyond horrifying. It is beyond unconscionable, and it has to end. These accounts of children working in slaughterhouses and factories are not only shocking; they are blatantly unlawful in America. Our Nation outlawed oppressive child labor almost 100 years ago. This is a problem that should be relegated to history books or novels by Dickens, but it is not. In fact, since 2018, there has been a nearly 70-percent increase in illegally employed children. When the number of children being forced to work dangerous and potentially deadly jobs is on the rise, it is clear that our child labor laws are not up to speed. Let me add the obvious. This is another condemnation of the failure of our immigration policy in America. Consider the fact that people desperately need workers--desperately. In every corner of my State of Illinois, they tell me one after the other: We need more police. We need more firefighters. We need more ambulance drivers. We need more healthcare workers. We need more workers in our nursing home--and on and on and on. And why are we facing these shortages? We are facing them because, for 4years under President Trump, we stopped allowing legal migration into the United States, as we had in previous years, so fewer and fewer of these immigrant workers who are available to take on jobs that Americans are not waiting in line to fill. Behind the swinging doors of most of the restaurants and at some of the hotels in the city of Chicago were undocumented workers filling jobs which no one on the other side of that door would be interested in. So when we don't have a legal system to allow migration to come to this country and to fill the jobs, this is what happens. Yesterday, I had a meeting with the Illinois Farm Bureau. I meet with them every year. There were about a dozen farmers from all across my State. I know politically who they are. They are great people. They are not necessarily of my political party or my political faith. But they all said the same thing: Senator, we need workers on our farms. Dairy farms, livestock operations, orchards--farms that need workers every single day, and they don't have them. They said: Don't tell us that we ought to go into town and get the kids in high school to be our next generation of workers. They are just not interested, and they are not filling the jobs. And if we don't fill these jobs, these conservative, politically, farmers are going to find their farming operations paying a heavy price for it. Why in the world can't we acknowledge the obvious? The obvious is that, if we have an orderly process to screen people to come work into the United States from various countries, we can stop seeing the onslaught of thousands coming to our border. We have already seen this happening in specific instances through the Department of Homeland Security. We ought to be enhancing it and increasing it. I joined Senator Schatz last week when it came to this issue of child exploitation. He introduced a bill that would significantly expand and strengthen penalties for companies violating child labor laws. Let the word go out as clearly as it can from the floor of the U.S. Senate: If you have a business and you are exploiting children, you are in trouble. You are breaking the law, and you are going to pay a price for it. It is just not acceptable. So don't use the excuse that you didn't know. Find out. It would also apply these penalties to independent contractors. That is really important because some employers have managed to exploit children by hiring them through staffing agencies in an effort to avoid fines. Our bill would end this despicable practice. When a company hires little kids to work on a fast-paced assembly line, where these kids can be injured and even have their lives endangered, or when a company hires children to debone chickens or inhale toxic chemicals in an auto factory, a small fine and a slap on the wrist just won't do. We need to impose serious penalties on these companies so they will never hire exploited children ever again. That is what this bill wants to do. Importantly, the investigation from the New York Times illustrates that the humanitarian crisis in this country is rooted in the failure of this broken immigration system. From migrant children to farm workers, to families living under the threat of deportation, there are millions of people living in the shadows in this country and being exploited right under our noses. For those who entered the United States and are allowed to legally stay until their hearing date, there is a loophole in the law which makes life for them, in a legal way, almost impossible. Many of these people, though legally in the United States waiting for their asylum hearing, cannot legally work in the United States, depending on their circumstances, for 6 months to a year. What are they supposed to do? They want to work. There are jobs that need to be filled. We should find a way to do this in an orderly fashion. The Times reporting made it clear that unaccompanied migrant children are extremely vulnerable to exploitation. That just stands to reason. Our Federal Agencies have to do more to protect them. Finally, I want to acknowledge a broader truth about the State of our economy. It is no secret that employers throughout the country are struggling to find workers in Illinois, New Mexico--everywhere. There are 11 million job openings in America and not nearly enough workers to fill them. It is disturbing that some Republican State lawmakers have suggested loosening the child labor laws to fill these openings. To them, I suggest they read that New York Times piece and imagine if it was your child or grandchild. Do we want kids skipping school to sit in a factory for 12 hours sewing socks or shivering in an industrial freezer? Is that any way to care for kids, whoever they may be, or to prepare the next generation of leaders in our country--the doctors, the educators, the citizens? Of course not. The fact is, the quickest and most sensible way to address the labor shortage in our country is to fix the broken immigration system. Let's stop dancing around it. Let's face the music. We need to give undocumented immigrants living in the shadows a chance to be legal, and we should increase the number of working-age immigrants in this country by establishing new, thoughtful pathways for workers to legally enter America. We should pair this effort with new funding to bring order to the border. That is a priority. I share it with our Republican colleagues who talk about that almost exclusively. The fact that American companies are turning to children to address our Nation's labor shortage is a national disgrace. We bear responsibility right here in the U.S. Senate. We were elected to solve problems just like this. How many years have we been sitting back and saying the immigration system is broken; we have to change the laws? I will tell you: More than 30 years. Employers are counting on us to fix the immigration laws from both parties so workers can enter the markets in a legal and safe way. Unless Congress finally comes together to reform immigration in a bipartisan manner, these human rights abuses and embarrassment to our Nation will continue. What are we waiting for? Let's get it done. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-09-pt1-PgS730-2 | null | 5,982 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Government Funding Mr. President, later today, the President of the United States will release his budget. We haven't seen the details of it yet so I am not prepared. I will have more to say about that next week when I have an opportunity to drill down. But I think what we do know about it--and I can predict this because it is pretty easy to predict that the President's budget will include a lot more spending, a lot more taxing and that after the last 2 years here where, through a budget reconciliation process, the President and the Democrats here in Congress passed almost another $3 trillion in spending and taxing and debt outside of the normal appropriations process at a time when revenue--last year's revenue--was at a 20-year high. In fact, the revenue coming to the Federal Government in the last fiscal year, as a percentage of our entire economy, was higher than it has been with three exceptions in history. One was in the late nineties at the end of the dot-com bubble and two times in World War II. It is a record level of revenue as a percentage of GDP, and yet the President in his budget is going to propose a whole lot more spending and a whole lot more taxing and a whole lot more government--expanding, growing government. That is what we expect his budget to do, and like I said, I will have more to say about that next week. (The remarks of Mr. Thune pertaining to the introduction of S. 734 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-09-pt1-PgS731 | null | 5,983 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today, I would like to extend best wishes to the former Senator from New York, James L. Buckley. One hundred years ago today, on the 9th of March, Jim was born the fourth of 10 children, just as the Roaring '20s were getting underway. As he celebrates his 100th birthday, an impressive milestone by all accounts--I am also told he is the oldest living former U.S. Senator among us--Barbara and I wish Jim and his family a happy celebration. Jim Buckley was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1970 as a candidate of the Conservative Party, making him the first third party candidate to win election to the U.S. Senate in four decades. Representing the State of New York in the 92nd through 94th sessions of Congress, he served during a rocky period in U.S. history that included the Vietnam and Watergate era. Before ever putting his name on the ballot for public office, Jim enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1942, serving our country in uniform during World War II. He received his law degree from Yale University in 1949 and, from there, pursued a career in the law as an attorney and in lawmaking as a U.S. Senator. Our congressional service overlapped during the 94th Congress, when I was a freshman Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. We didn't have the opportunity to serve together here in the upper Chamber. Senator Buckley ran for reelection as a Republican in 1976, losing to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, with whom I served until his retirement in 2001. As conservatives, Senator Buckley and I share a commitment to shared principles, limited government, sanctity of life, States' rights, and safeguarding constitutional rights, including political free speech. In fact, his name will be attached for posterity to a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, Buckley v. Valeo. Then-Senator Buckley led a coalition of free speech advocates to challenge amendments made to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 because they interfered with First Amendment rights. Students of history, political junkies, and legal scholars recognize that this case has shaped the landscape of free speech and campaign finance for the last five decades. In 1976, the High Court arrived at two important conclusions regarding campaign finance laws. On the one hand, the Supreme Court found that contribution ceilings on individual contributions did not violate the First Amendment. However, in a vote of 7-1, it struck down restrictions on campaign expenses and found they did violate the First Amendment as an infringement on free expression. Following his time in the legislative branch, Senator Buckley went on to serve in the Reagan administration in the U.S. State Department. From 1982-1985, Senator Buckley served as president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Germany, essentially a clarion of the airwaves fighting communism. From there, he continued his lifelong devotion to public service when he was nominated by President Reagan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Judge Buckley was confirmed by the Senate on December 17, 1985. He served for the next 11 years and assumed senior status on August 31, 1996. I have served on the Senate Judiciary committee every year I have been honored to represent Iowa in the Senate, including 6 years as chairman. My colleagues here in the Senate understand that I take seriously my constitutional role to vet nominees to the Federal bench. In our system of checks and balances, I strive to uphold this fundamental cornerstone of our democratic republic. Lawmakers write the laws and set policy. Judges interpret the laws; they don't exercise their value judgments or impose their own policy preferences. As Judge Buckley himself said at his portrait ceremony in December of 2003: ``I hope, though, that my service on this court has been able to establish, if nothing else, that it is possible for a person to have the strongest views on questions of public policy and still understand and observe the sharp distinction between the constitutional role of a legislator and that of a judge.'' I couldn't say it better myself. I salute this great American for his public service to our great Nation, from the U.S. military and spanning all three branches of the Federal Government. Senior statesman, Senator, and judge may not be his most exalted titles. For someone whose humility and commitment to family are well known, those honors are husband, dad and grandfather. I extend my best wishes to Jim for a happy 100th birthday. Thank you for your patriotism, principled leadership, and service to America. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2023-03-09-pt1-PgS737-2 | null | 5,984 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today, I would like to extend best wishes to the former Senator from New York, James L. Buckley. One hundred years ago today, on the 9th of March, Jim was born the fourth of 10 children, just as the Roaring '20s were getting underway. As he celebrates his 100th birthday, an impressive milestone by all accounts--I am also told he is the oldest living former U.S. Senator among us--Barbara and I wish Jim and his family a happy celebration. Jim Buckley was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1970 as a candidate of the Conservative Party, making him the first third party candidate to win election to the U.S. Senate in four decades. Representing the State of New York in the 92nd through 94th sessions of Congress, he served during a rocky period in U.S. history that included the Vietnam and Watergate era. Before ever putting his name on the ballot for public office, Jim enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1942, serving our country in uniform during World War II. He received his law degree from Yale University in 1949 and, from there, pursued a career in the law as an attorney and in lawmaking as a U.S. Senator. Our congressional service overlapped during the 94th Congress, when I was a freshman Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. We didn't have the opportunity to serve together here in the upper Chamber. Senator Buckley ran for reelection as a Republican in 1976, losing to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, with whom I served until his retirement in 2001. As conservatives, Senator Buckley and I share a commitment to shared principles, limited government, sanctity of life, States' rights, and safeguarding constitutional rights, including political free speech. In fact, his name will be attached for posterity to a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, Buckley v. Valeo. Then-Senator Buckley led a coalition of free speech advocates to challenge amendments made to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 because they interfered with First Amendment rights. Students of history, political junkies, and legal scholars recognize that this case has shaped the landscape of free speech and campaign finance for the last five decades. In 1976, the High Court arrived at two important conclusions regarding campaign finance laws. On the one hand, the Supreme Court found that contribution ceilings on individual contributions did not violate the First Amendment. However, in a vote of 7-1, it struck down restrictions on campaign expenses and found they did violate the First Amendment as an infringement on free expression. Following his time in the legislative branch, Senator Buckley went on to serve in the Reagan administration in the U.S. State Department. From 1982-1985, Senator Buckley served as president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Germany, essentially a clarion of the airwaves fighting communism. From there, he continued his lifelong devotion to public service when he was nominated by President Reagan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Judge Buckley was confirmed by the Senate on December 17, 1985. He served for the next 11 years and assumed senior status on August 31, 1996. I have served on the Senate Judiciary committee every year I have been honored to represent Iowa in the Senate, including 6 years as chairman. My colleagues here in the Senate understand that I take seriously my constitutional role to vet nominees to the Federal bench. In our system of checks and balances, I strive to uphold this fundamental cornerstone of our democratic republic. Lawmakers write the laws and set policy. Judges interpret the laws; they don't exercise their value judgments or impose their own policy preferences. As Judge Buckley himself said at his portrait ceremony in December of 2003: ``I hope, though, that my service on this court has been able to establish, if nothing else, that it is possible for a person to have the strongest views on questions of public policy and still understand and observe the sharp distinction between the constitutional role of a legislator and that of a judge.'' I couldn't say it better myself. I salute this great American for his public service to our great Nation, from the U.S. military and spanning all three branches of the Federal Government. Senior statesman, Senator, and judge may not be his most exalted titles. For someone whose humility and commitment to family are well known, those honors are husband, dad and grandfather. I extend my best wishes to Jim for a happy 100th birthday. Thank you for your patriotism, principled leadership, and service to America. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2023-03-09-pt1-PgS737-2 | null | 5,985 |
formal | safeguarding | null | transphobic | Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today, I would like to extend best wishes to the former Senator from New York, James L. Buckley. One hundred years ago today, on the 9th of March, Jim was born the fourth of 10 children, just as the Roaring '20s were getting underway. As he celebrates his 100th birthday, an impressive milestone by all accounts--I am also told he is the oldest living former U.S. Senator among us--Barbara and I wish Jim and his family a happy celebration. Jim Buckley was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1970 as a candidate of the Conservative Party, making him the first third party candidate to win election to the U.S. Senate in four decades. Representing the State of New York in the 92nd through 94th sessions of Congress, he served during a rocky period in U.S. history that included the Vietnam and Watergate era. Before ever putting his name on the ballot for public office, Jim enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1942, serving our country in uniform during World War II. He received his law degree from Yale University in 1949 and, from there, pursued a career in the law as an attorney and in lawmaking as a U.S. Senator. Our congressional service overlapped during the 94th Congress, when I was a freshman Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. We didn't have the opportunity to serve together here in the upper Chamber. Senator Buckley ran for reelection as a Republican in 1976, losing to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, with whom I served until his retirement in 2001. As conservatives, Senator Buckley and I share a commitment to shared principles, limited government, sanctity of life, States' rights, and safeguarding constitutional rights, including political free speech. In fact, his name will be attached for posterity to a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, Buckley v. Valeo. Then-Senator Buckley led a coalition of free speech advocates to challenge amendments made to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 because they interfered with First Amendment rights. Students of history, political junkies, and legal scholars recognize that this case has shaped the landscape of free speech and campaign finance for the last five decades. In 1976, the High Court arrived at two important conclusions regarding campaign finance laws. On the one hand, the Supreme Court found that contribution ceilings on individual contributions did not violate the First Amendment. However, in a vote of 7-1, it struck down restrictions on campaign expenses and found they did violate the First Amendment as an infringement on free expression. Following his time in the legislative branch, Senator Buckley went on to serve in the Reagan administration in the U.S. State Department. From 1982-1985, Senator Buckley served as president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Germany, essentially a clarion of the airwaves fighting communism. From there, he continued his lifelong devotion to public service when he was nominated by President Reagan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Judge Buckley was confirmed by the Senate on December 17, 1985. He served for the next 11 years and assumed senior status on August 31, 1996. I have served on the Senate Judiciary committee every year I have been honored to represent Iowa in the Senate, including 6 years as chairman. My colleagues here in the Senate understand that I take seriously my constitutional role to vet nominees to the Federal bench. In our system of checks and balances, I strive to uphold this fundamental cornerstone of our democratic republic. Lawmakers write the laws and set policy. Judges interpret the laws; they don't exercise their value judgments or impose their own policy preferences. As Judge Buckley himself said at his portrait ceremony in December of 2003: ``I hope, though, that my service on this court has been able to establish, if nothing else, that it is possible for a person to have the strongest views on questions of public policy and still understand and observe the sharp distinction between the constitutional role of a legislator and that of a judge.'' I couldn't say it better myself. I salute this great American for his public service to our great Nation, from the U.S. military and spanning all three branches of the Federal Government. Senior statesman, Senator, and judge may not be his most exalted titles. For someone whose humility and commitment to family are well known, those honors are husband, dad and grandfather. I extend my best wishes to Jim for a happy 100th birthday. Thank you for your patriotism, principled leadership, and service to America. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2023-03-09-pt1-PgS737-2 | null | 5,986 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Ms. CORTEZ MASTO (for herself, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Markey, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Reed, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Hassan, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Welch, Mr. Coons, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Rosen,Mr. Casey, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Warren, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Brown, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Booker, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Kaine, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Durbin) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 104 Whereas the United States celebrates National Women's History Month every March to recognize and honor the achievements of women throughout the history of the United States; Whereas there are nearly 30,000,000 Latinas living in the United States; Whereas 1 in 6 women in the United States is a Latina; Whereas Latinas have helped shape the history of the United States since its inception; Whereas Latinas contribute to the society of the United States through working in many industries, including business, education, science and technology, medicine, engineering, mathematics, literature and the arts, the military, agriculture, hospitality, and public service; Whereas Latinas served as essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, filling vital positions that keep the economy going and the people of the United States safe; Whereas Latinas come from diverse cultures across North America, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean, and Afro-Latinas face disparities in recognition; Whereas Latinas are dedicated public servants, holding posts at the highest levels of the Federal Government, including the Supreme Court of the United States, Cabinet- level positions, the United States Senate, and the United States House of Representatives; Whereas there are approximately 45,710 active duty Latinas in the Armed Forces, and the first Latina to become a general in the Marine Corps reached that rank in 2006; Whereas Latinas are breaking the glass ceiling in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, with the first Latina to travel into space doing so during a 9-day Space Shuttle Discovery mission in 1993; Whereas Latinas own more than 2,000,000 businesses, and 18 percent of all women-owned companies in the United States are owned by a Latina; Whereas Latina activists have led the fight for civil rights, including labor rights, LGBTQ rights, women's rights, and racial equality; Whereas Latinas like Hollywood icon Raquel Welch have created award-winning art; Whereas Latinas are recipients of Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony awards, including Rita Moreno, who earned all 4 awards between 1961 and 1977; Whereas Latina singers and songwriters, such as Selena, Celia Cruz, Shakira, and Linda Ronstadt, have made lasting and significant contributions to music throughout the world; Whereas Latinas serve in the medical profession, and the first female and first Hispanic Surgeon General of the United States was appointed in 1990; Whereas Latinas serve as journalists, reporting vital news and information to the public; Whereas Latinas are world-class athletes, representing the United States in the Olympics and other international competitions; Whereas Latinas are paid just 57 cents for every dollar paid to White, non-Hispanic men, and Latinas will not achieve equal pay at the current rate for another 432 years; Whereas, in the face of societal obstacles, including unequal pay, disparities in education, health care needs, and civil rights struggles, Latinas continue to break through and thrive; Whereas the United States should continue to invest in the future of Latinas to address the barriers they face; and Whereas, by 2060, Latinas will represent \1/4\ of the female population of the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) celebrates and honors the successes of Latinas and the contributions they have made and continue to make to the United States; and (2) recognizes the changes that are still to be made to ensure that Latinas can realize their full potential as equal members of society. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-09-pt1-PgS748-3 | null | 5,987 |
formal | Hollywood | null | antisemitic | Ms. CORTEZ MASTO (for herself, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Markey, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Reed, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Hassan, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Welch, Mr. Coons, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Rosen,Mr. Casey, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Warren, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Brown, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Booker, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Kaine, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Durbin) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 104 Whereas the United States celebrates National Women's History Month every March to recognize and honor the achievements of women throughout the history of the United States; Whereas there are nearly 30,000,000 Latinas living in the United States; Whereas 1 in 6 women in the United States is a Latina; Whereas Latinas have helped shape the history of the United States since its inception; Whereas Latinas contribute to the society of the United States through working in many industries, including business, education, science and technology, medicine, engineering, mathematics, literature and the arts, the military, agriculture, hospitality, and public service; Whereas Latinas served as essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, filling vital positions that keep the economy going and the people of the United States safe; Whereas Latinas come from diverse cultures across North America, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean, and Afro-Latinas face disparities in recognition; Whereas Latinas are dedicated public servants, holding posts at the highest levels of the Federal Government, including the Supreme Court of the United States, Cabinet- level positions, the United States Senate, and the United States House of Representatives; Whereas there are approximately 45,710 active duty Latinas in the Armed Forces, and the first Latina to become a general in the Marine Corps reached that rank in 2006; Whereas Latinas are breaking the glass ceiling in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, with the first Latina to travel into space doing so during a 9-day Space Shuttle Discovery mission in 1993; Whereas Latinas own more than 2,000,000 businesses, and 18 percent of all women-owned companies in the United States are owned by a Latina; Whereas Latina activists have led the fight for civil rights, including labor rights, LGBTQ rights, women's rights, and racial equality; Whereas Latinas like Hollywood icon Raquel Welch have created award-winning art; Whereas Latinas are recipients of Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony awards, including Rita Moreno, who earned all 4 awards between 1961 and 1977; Whereas Latina singers and songwriters, such as Selena, Celia Cruz, Shakira, and Linda Ronstadt, have made lasting and significant contributions to music throughout the world; Whereas Latinas serve in the medical profession, and the first female and first Hispanic Surgeon General of the United States was appointed in 1990; Whereas Latinas serve as journalists, reporting vital news and information to the public; Whereas Latinas are world-class athletes, representing the United States in the Olympics and other international competitions; Whereas Latinas are paid just 57 cents for every dollar paid to White, non-Hispanic men, and Latinas will not achieve equal pay at the current rate for another 432 years; Whereas, in the face of societal obstacles, including unequal pay, disparities in education, health care needs, and civil rights struggles, Latinas continue to break through and thrive; Whereas the United States should continue to invest in the future of Latinas to address the barriers they face; and Whereas, by 2060, Latinas will represent \1/4\ of the female population of the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) celebrates and honors the successes of Latinas and the contributions they have made and continue to make to the United States; and (2) recognizes the changes that are still to be made to ensure that Latinas can realize their full potential as equal members of society. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-09-pt1-PgS748-3 | null | 5,988 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, so many cities and towns across America have the story of a segment of highway or a railroad track that cuts ruthlessly through neighborhoods. These neighborhoods may not have been affluent, but they supported vibrant, tight-knit, supportive communities with cherished homes, schools, and small businesses. Backed with Federal funding, these highways and other massive infrastructure projects tore these neighborhoods apart and left them an enduring legacy of exclusion and diminished opportunity. To be sure, these infrastructure projects were intended to serve a purpose, and they did serve a purpose--transportation, of a particular sort. For families who could afford a car and a house in the suburbs, highways were built to whisk people in and out of our urban downtowns, without regard for the people and the communities remaining in those downtowns. In the most benign cases, these projects were designed without care or sensitivity to the people they left behind and excluded. In the worst cases, the outcome of suppression and exclusion of people of color was, in fact, deliberate. It is time to confront our legacy of racism and exclusion in infrastructure development and promote the next generation of infrastructure that heals, unifies, and reconnects--an infrastructure of inclusion, not division. Thankfully, under President Biden's leadership and the direction of Congress, we are doing just that. President Biden has affirmed and reaffirmed his commitment to advancing equity and combating systemic racism through two Executive orders. The first Executive order, which was signed on the first day in his office, said: The Federal Government should pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality. Affirmatively advancing equity, civil rights, racial justice, and equal opportunity is the responsibility of the whole of our Government. The Executive order he signed just last month acknowledges that we have so much work to do. It says: [M]embers of underserved communities--many of whom have endured generations of discrimination and disinvestment-- still confront significant barriers to realizing the full promise of our great Nation, and the Federal Government has a responsibility to remove these barriers. How to remove these barriers. These barriers exist in a metaphoric sense, but sometimes they are concrete--literally. Baltimore City has dealt with the enduring legacy of its own ``highway to nowhere.'' This project is on the Franklin-Mulberry corridor in West Baltimore. It started as a way to get drivers out of the city quickly. Although the city never completed the project, a 1.4-mile stretch of highway contained within a concrete canyon was built and did irreparable harm to the surrounding communities: 971 homes and 61 businesses were destroyed. The project displaced approximately 1,500 people, most of them Black. And for decades, the city has lived with this eyesore and barrier to growth, opportunity, and connection. Let me be clear. Removing barriers like highways is not simply about demolishing or removing infrastructure; it is about building the kind of infrastructure our cities and communities need--the infrastructure of connectivity and inclusion. This means that instead of a highway for fast moving cars--or worse, an unused highway--in the case of Baltimore's ``highway to nowhere,'' we need to restore neighborhood street grids, parks, sidewalks, and bike trails--the infrastructure we need to reconnect people with opportunities, with businesses, with education, and with healthcare. I am proud that under President Biden's leadership on equity and the surface transportation title of the bipartisan infrastructure law that the Committee on Environment and Public Works negotiated, we now have a Federal program specifically aimed at addressing the legacy of division and exclusion from past infrastructure projects and supporting a new and better future for hurt and marginalized communities. The Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act, which the Environment and Public Works Committee reported unanimously in May of 2021, includes the Reconnecting Communities Program, later included in the final Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. I might say I am proud of the role that our Presiding Officer played in the development of that law, the infrastructure law, as well as Reconnecting Communities. I was proud to serve on the committee with our Presiding Officer, and we are pleased to be an integral part in making sure that legislation got to the President's desk. When we were negotiating the surface transportation reauthorization bill, it was not easy to convince everyone that this would be a worthy program. But just look at the overwhelming need across the country and the expressions of interest in the first round of grant awards--more than 350 applications nationwide--that far outpaced the amount of funding available. There are so many worthy projects across the country. They never received enough planning and consideration through the Federal policy framework that existed prior to President Biden's focus on equity, the bipartisan infrastructure bill, and Reconnecting Communities. I think the overwhelming need we are seeing across the country will strongly support the program's continuation and expansion into one of the U.S. Department of Transportation's signature initiatives. Last month, after all the work of developing legislation and enacting it into law and standing up the program, the Department of Transportation awarded the very first round of Reconnecting Communities grants. I am proud that after all the work on the bipartisan infrastructure law, Baltimore City was one of the first recipients of the Federal funding under the Reconnecting Communities Program. Baltimore will receive a $2 million grant for planning, to which the State of Maryland, under Governor Moore, is adding $400,000. This funding is going to start an important process of planning and engagement with the people of Baltimore to develop a proposal, one that I hope will move forward in the coming years with Federal support for the construction of a project of great significance to Baltimore and its future. This award for Baltimore and the establishment of the Reconnecting Communities Program is an important milestone in the history of our Nation's approach to infrastructure. For far too long, our national infrastructure policies contributed to tearing down communities while we built our transportation networks. With the Reconnecting Communities Program, our Federal infrastructure policy will no longer tear communities apart. Rather, it must build up, reconnect, and support them. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2023-03-09-pt1-PgS751-4 | null | 5,989 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, so many cities and towns across America have the story of a segment of highway or a railroad track that cuts ruthlessly through neighborhoods. These neighborhoods may not have been affluent, but they supported vibrant, tight-knit, supportive communities with cherished homes, schools, and small businesses. Backed with Federal funding, these highways and other massive infrastructure projects tore these neighborhoods apart and left them an enduring legacy of exclusion and diminished opportunity. To be sure, these infrastructure projects were intended to serve a purpose, and they did serve a purpose--transportation, of a particular sort. For families who could afford a car and a house in the suburbs, highways were built to whisk people in and out of our urban downtowns, without regard for the people and the communities remaining in those downtowns. In the most benign cases, these projects were designed without care or sensitivity to the people they left behind and excluded. In the worst cases, the outcome of suppression and exclusion of people of color was, in fact, deliberate. It is time to confront our legacy of racism and exclusion in infrastructure development and promote the next generation of infrastructure that heals, unifies, and reconnects--an infrastructure of inclusion, not division. Thankfully, under President Biden's leadership and the direction of Congress, we are doing just that. President Biden has affirmed and reaffirmed his commitment to advancing equity and combating systemic racism through two Executive orders. The first Executive order, which was signed on the first day in his office, said: The Federal Government should pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality. Affirmatively advancing equity, civil rights, racial justice, and equal opportunity is the responsibility of the whole of our Government. The Executive order he signed just last month acknowledges that we have so much work to do. It says: [M]embers of underserved communities--many of whom have endured generations of discrimination and disinvestment-- still confront significant barriers to realizing the full promise of our great Nation, and the Federal Government has a responsibility to remove these barriers. How to remove these barriers. These barriers exist in a metaphoric sense, but sometimes they are concrete--literally. Baltimore City has dealt with the enduring legacy of its own ``highway to nowhere.'' This project is on the Franklin-Mulberry corridor in West Baltimore. It started as a way to get drivers out of the city quickly. Although the city never completed the project, a 1.4-mile stretch of highway contained within a concrete canyon was built and did irreparable harm to the surrounding communities: 971 homes and 61 businesses were destroyed. The project displaced approximately 1,500 people, most of them Black. And for decades, the city has lived with this eyesore and barrier to growth, opportunity, and connection. Let me be clear. Removing barriers like highways is not simply about demolishing or removing infrastructure; it is about building the kind of infrastructure our cities and communities need--the infrastructure of connectivity and inclusion. This means that instead of a highway for fast moving cars--or worse, an unused highway--in the case of Baltimore's ``highway to nowhere,'' we need to restore neighborhood street grids, parks, sidewalks, and bike trails--the infrastructure we need to reconnect people with opportunities, with businesses, with education, and with healthcare. I am proud that under President Biden's leadership on equity and the surface transportation title of the bipartisan infrastructure law that the Committee on Environment and Public Works negotiated, we now have a Federal program specifically aimed at addressing the legacy of division and exclusion from past infrastructure projects and supporting a new and better future for hurt and marginalized communities. The Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act, which the Environment and Public Works Committee reported unanimously in May of 2021, includes the Reconnecting Communities Program, later included in the final Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. I might say I am proud of the role that our Presiding Officer played in the development of that law, the infrastructure law, as well as Reconnecting Communities. I was proud to serve on the committee with our Presiding Officer, and we are pleased to be an integral part in making sure that legislation got to the President's desk. When we were negotiating the surface transportation reauthorization bill, it was not easy to convince everyone that this would be a worthy program. But just look at the overwhelming need across the country and the expressions of interest in the first round of grant awards--more than 350 applications nationwide--that far outpaced the amount of funding available. There are so many worthy projects across the country. They never received enough planning and consideration through the Federal policy framework that existed prior to President Biden's focus on equity, the bipartisan infrastructure bill, and Reconnecting Communities. I think the overwhelming need we are seeing across the country will strongly support the program's continuation and expansion into one of the U.S. Department of Transportation's signature initiatives. Last month, after all the work of developing legislation and enacting it into law and standing up the program, the Department of Transportation awarded the very first round of Reconnecting Communities grants. I am proud that after all the work on the bipartisan infrastructure law, Baltimore City was one of the first recipients of the Federal funding under the Reconnecting Communities Program. Baltimore will receive a $2 million grant for planning, to which the State of Maryland, under Governor Moore, is adding $400,000. This funding is going to start an important process of planning and engagement with the people of Baltimore to develop a proposal, one that I hope will move forward in the coming years with Federal support for the construction of a project of great significance to Baltimore and its future. This award for Baltimore and the establishment of the Reconnecting Communities Program is an important milestone in the history of our Nation's approach to infrastructure. For far too long, our national infrastructure policies contributed to tearing down communities while we built our transportation networks. With the Reconnecting Communities Program, our Federal infrastructure policy will no longer tear communities apart. Rather, it must build up, reconnect, and support them. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2023-03-09-pt1-PgS751-4 | null | 5,990 |
formal | Baltimore | null | racist | Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, so many cities and towns across America have the story of a segment of highway or a railroad track that cuts ruthlessly through neighborhoods. These neighborhoods may not have been affluent, but they supported vibrant, tight-knit, supportive communities with cherished homes, schools, and small businesses. Backed with Federal funding, these highways and other massive infrastructure projects tore these neighborhoods apart and left them an enduring legacy of exclusion and diminished opportunity. To be sure, these infrastructure projects were intended to serve a purpose, and they did serve a purpose--transportation, of a particular sort. For families who could afford a car and a house in the suburbs, highways were built to whisk people in and out of our urban downtowns, without regard for the people and the communities remaining in those downtowns. In the most benign cases, these projects were designed without care or sensitivity to the people they left behind and excluded. In the worst cases, the outcome of suppression and exclusion of people of color was, in fact, deliberate. It is time to confront our legacy of racism and exclusion in infrastructure development and promote the next generation of infrastructure that heals, unifies, and reconnects--an infrastructure of inclusion, not division. Thankfully, under President Biden's leadership and the direction of Congress, we are doing just that. President Biden has affirmed and reaffirmed his commitment to advancing equity and combating systemic racism through two Executive orders. The first Executive order, which was signed on the first day in his office, said: The Federal Government should pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality. Affirmatively advancing equity, civil rights, racial justice, and equal opportunity is the responsibility of the whole of our Government. The Executive order he signed just last month acknowledges that we have so much work to do. It says: [M]embers of underserved communities--many of whom have endured generations of discrimination and disinvestment-- still confront significant barriers to realizing the full promise of our great Nation, and the Federal Government has a responsibility to remove these barriers. How to remove these barriers. These barriers exist in a metaphoric sense, but sometimes they are concrete--literally. Baltimore City has dealt with the enduring legacy of its own ``highway to nowhere.'' This project is on the Franklin-Mulberry corridor in West Baltimore. It started as a way to get drivers out of the city quickly. Although the city never completed the project, a 1.4-mile stretch of highway contained within a concrete canyon was built and did irreparable harm to the surrounding communities: 971 homes and 61 businesses were destroyed. The project displaced approximately 1,500 people, most of them Black. And for decades, the city has lived with this eyesore and barrier to growth, opportunity, and connection. Let me be clear. Removing barriers like highways is not simply about demolishing or removing infrastructure; it is about building the kind of infrastructure our cities and communities need--the infrastructure of connectivity and inclusion. This means that instead of a highway for fast moving cars--or worse, an unused highway--in the case of Baltimore's ``highway to nowhere,'' we need to restore neighborhood street grids, parks, sidewalks, and bike trails--the infrastructure we need to reconnect people with opportunities, with businesses, with education, and with healthcare. I am proud that under President Biden's leadership on equity and the surface transportation title of the bipartisan infrastructure law that the Committee on Environment and Public Works negotiated, we now have a Federal program specifically aimed at addressing the legacy of division and exclusion from past infrastructure projects and supporting a new and better future for hurt and marginalized communities. The Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act, which the Environment and Public Works Committee reported unanimously in May of 2021, includes the Reconnecting Communities Program, later included in the final Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. I might say I am proud of the role that our Presiding Officer played in the development of that law, the infrastructure law, as well as Reconnecting Communities. I was proud to serve on the committee with our Presiding Officer, and we are pleased to be an integral part in making sure that legislation got to the President's desk. When we were negotiating the surface transportation reauthorization bill, it was not easy to convince everyone that this would be a worthy program. But just look at the overwhelming need across the country and the expressions of interest in the first round of grant awards--more than 350 applications nationwide--that far outpaced the amount of funding available. There are so many worthy projects across the country. They never received enough planning and consideration through the Federal policy framework that existed prior to President Biden's focus on equity, the bipartisan infrastructure bill, and Reconnecting Communities. I think the overwhelming need we are seeing across the country will strongly support the program's continuation and expansion into one of the U.S. Department of Transportation's signature initiatives. Last month, after all the work of developing legislation and enacting it into law and standing up the program, the Department of Transportation awarded the very first round of Reconnecting Communities grants. I am proud that after all the work on the bipartisan infrastructure law, Baltimore City was one of the first recipients of the Federal funding under the Reconnecting Communities Program. Baltimore will receive a $2 million grant for planning, to which the State of Maryland, under Governor Moore, is adding $400,000. This funding is going to start an important process of planning and engagement with the people of Baltimore to develop a proposal, one that I hope will move forward in the coming years with Federal support for the construction of a project of great significance to Baltimore and its future. This award for Baltimore and the establishment of the Reconnecting Communities Program is an important milestone in the history of our Nation's approach to infrastructure. For far too long, our national infrastructure policies contributed to tearing down communities while we built our transportation networks. With the Reconnecting Communities Program, our Federal infrastructure policy will no longer tear communities apart. Rather, it must build up, reconnect, and support them. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2023-03-09-pt1-PgS751-4 | null | 5,991 |
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-2023-03-10-pt1-PgH1279 | null | 5,992 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Ms. FOXX: Committee on Education and the Workforce. H.R. 5. A bill to ensure the rights of parents are honored and protected in the Nation's public schools; with an amendment (Rept. 118-9). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-03-14-pt1-PgH1284-4 | null | 5,993 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Ms. FOXX: Committee on Education and the Workforce. H.R. 5. A bill to ensure the rights of parents are honored and protected in the Nation's public schools; with an amendment (Rept. 118-9). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-03-14-pt1-PgH1284-4 | null | 5,994 |
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-2023-03-14-pt1-PgH1286 | null | 5,995 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Ms. TOKUDA: H.J. Res. 43. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 18 of the United States Constitution. The single subject of this legislation is: To consent to the amendments to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, made by Act 80 of the Session Laws of Hawaii, 2017. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-03-14-pt1-PgH1288-14 | null | 5,996 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Silicon Valley Bank Mr. President, now, over the weekend, as we all know, the U.S. banking system faced a significant threat after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. If the damage had spread across our financial system, the deposits and savings of tens of millions of families and small businesses could have been at serious risk. Today, as we speak, thankfully, our banking system is stable thanks to the work of the Biden administration, the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC on Sunday. I thank the President, the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC for taking swift action to preserve confidence in the banking system, and the American people can rest assured that bank regulators have acted quickly and are doing everything they can to protect consumers. In the days and weeks to come, Congress will look closely at what caused the run on Silicon Valley Bank and how we can prevent similar events in the future. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-14-pt1-PgS755-10 | null | 5,997 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Silicon Valley Bank Mr. President, now, over the weekend, as we all know, the U.S. banking system faced a significant threat after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. If the damage had spread across our financial system, the deposits and savings of tens of millions of families and small businesses could have been at serious risk. Today, as we speak, thankfully, our banking system is stable thanks to the work of the Biden administration, the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC on Sunday. I thank the President, the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC for taking swift action to preserve confidence in the banking system, and the American people can rest assured that bank regulators have acted quickly and are doing everything they can to protect consumers. In the days and weeks to come, Congress will look closely at what caused the run on Silicon Valley Bank and how we can prevent similar events in the future. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-14-pt1-PgS755-10 | null | 5,998 |
formal | MAGA | null | white supremacist | Gun Safety Mr. President, now, on the President's Executive order on guns, today, in Monterrey Park, CA--where, sadly, unfortunately, tragically, a gunman murdered 11 people in January during Lunar New Year celebrations--President Biden will announce a new Executive order to strengthen background checks and other commonsense gun safety measures. I commend President Biden for taking this much needed step to fight the scourge of gun violence in our country. After gunmen massacred dozens of people in Buffalo and Uvalde last year, the Senate defied the NRA and passed a bipartisan, commonsense, and lifesaving gun safety bill for the first time in decades. It was the first step Congress took since the Brady bill in 1994, which I was proud to author and lead passage of, which mandated Federal background checks on firearms. Last year's bipartisan safety bill was a good, long-overdue step of progress, but we must do more. Gun violence remains a devastating sickness that festers deep within the heart of our Nation. Democrats stand ready to keep working together to combat violence, and we hope a good number of our Republican colleagues will join us once again. I hope my colleagues on the other side can free themselves from the vice grip of the NRA and the MAGA wing of the Republican Party and work with Democrats to pass more gun safety legislation in this Congress. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-14-pt1-PgS756-2 | null | 5,999 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.