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 | balance the budget | null | conservative | Congressional Budget Office Mr. President, finally, today, CBO released a letter confirming what most of us already knew: The Republican plan to balance the budget in 10 years and keep the Trump tax cuts is impossible--mathematically impossible--without making cuts to Social Security, Medicare, defense, and veterans' benefits. To balance the budget in 10 years with no new revenues, while somehow leaving Medicare, Social Security, veterans' programs, and defense unscathed, Republicans would have to cut 86 percent from every other Federal program. That means nearly obliterating funds for Medicaid, for food and housing support, border security, healthcare, infrastructure. This leaves Americans with a profound worry about their benefits, and it leaves Americans with some big questions down the road. If Republicans can't reach their goals without forcing severe cuts down Americans' throats, then what exactly are they planning to do? To date, Republicans have refused to talk straight with the American people about budget cuts. Speaker McCarthy, today is March 14. Show us your plan. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-14-pt1-PgS756-4 | null | 6,000 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Congressional Budget Office Mr. President, finally, today, CBO released a letter confirming what most of us already knew: The Republican plan to balance the budget in 10 years and keep the Trump tax cuts is impossible--mathematically impossible--without making cuts to Social Security, Medicare, defense, and veterans' benefits. To balance the budget in 10 years with no new revenues, while somehow leaving Medicare, Social Security, veterans' programs, and defense unscathed, Republicans would have to cut 86 percent from every other Federal program. That means nearly obliterating funds for Medicaid, for food and housing support, border security, healthcare, infrastructure. This leaves Americans with a profound worry about their benefits, and it leaves Americans with some big questions down the road. If Republicans can't reach their goals without forcing severe cuts down Americans' throats, then what exactly are they planning to do? To date, Republicans have refused to talk straight with the American people about budget cuts. Speaker McCarthy, today is March 14. Show us your plan. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-14-pt1-PgS756-4 | null | 6,001 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | Congressional Budget Office Mr. President, finally, today, CBO released a letter confirming what most of us already knew: The Republican plan to balance the budget in 10 years and keep the Trump tax cuts is impossible--mathematically impossible--without making cuts to Social Security, Medicare, defense, and veterans' benefits. To balance the budget in 10 years with no new revenues, while somehow leaving Medicare, Social Security, veterans' programs, and defense unscathed, Republicans would have to cut 86 percent from every other Federal program. That means nearly obliterating funds for Medicaid, for food and housing support, border security, healthcare, infrastructure. This leaves Americans with a profound worry about their benefits, and it leaves Americans with some big questions down the road. If Republicans can't reach their goals without forcing severe cuts down Americans' throats, then what exactly are they planning to do? To date, Republicans have refused to talk straight with the American people about budget cuts. Speaker McCarthy, today is March 14. Show us your plan. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-14-pt1-PgS756-4 | null | 6,002 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Budget Mr. President, there is an old saying that there aren't a lot of atheists in foxholes. In my experience, there aren't a lot of unyielding, uncompromising, fiscally conservative, so-called budget hawks when a disaster hits. It gets personal. When tornadoes rip across your State or hurricanes devastate your community, when a cold snap takes down the electric grid in your State, when blazing heat sets off raging wildfires, when a freight train haulingtoxic chemicals derails and explodes into a raging fireball, you don't find a platoon of Ayn Rand-quoting ideologues that really come to the scene and want to be heard. People want to see FEMA and other government Agencies on the scene helping as quickly as possible. They want to know that their government is there to help when it is needed. When it gets right down to it, we Americans face a fundamental choice. Do we want a Federal Government that is there when we need a hand or do we want a government that will preach to us: Sorry. You are on your own, Mr. Taxpayer? Do we want a government that is farsighted enough to plant the American flag on new industries and inventions for the future or do we plan on leaving these transformative discoveries--the Moonshots of this century--to China? President Biden told us last week where he stands on these basic questions when he proposed his budget to Congress. It is a plan that protects Social Security, strengthens Medicare, and adds 25 years of additional solvency to the Medicare Program. The President's budget plan gives working families help with the basics--affordable, reliable healthcare coverage, including savings on prescription drugs, which the Democratic leader just noted when it came to insulin. The President's budget invests in affordable housing and quality childcare. It invests in community colleges to educate skilled workers that our economy desperately needs and helps students land good-paying jobs and get a start on a 4-year degree. The President's budget restores the enhanced child tax credit, which helped cut poverty among children in the United States in half when we included it during the pandemic. We are, in fact, the richest Nation on Earth, yet, shamefully, we have the highest child poverty rate among all advanced nations. If the superwealthy can claim tax breaks on their yachts, surely we can find affordable tax credits to help working families care for their kids. President Reagan called another part of the Tax Code--the earned income tax credit--the best anti-poverty program ever invented. President Biden is proposing to make the earned income tax credit for childless workers permanent to lift millions of low-wage Americans out of poverty. Isn't that something that should be our aspiration in this country as a high priority? If you say you believe in the dignity of work, if you say you respect men and women who take the bus early in the morning, working maybe two or even three jobs to make ends meet, here is a chance to show our respect for work--support the earned income tax credit. President Biden's budget includes continued funding for a Cancer Moonshot to end cancer as we know it. What family in America hasn't known the heartache personally or among friends or family members and frequently the financial devastation of cancer? Not many. I hope people not only embrace the administration's Cancer Moonshot but will continue the 5-percent real growth in medical research--including the National Institutes of Health--that this Senate has supported on a bipartisan basis for nearly a decade. I went out to National Institutes of Health about 10 years ago, and I met with one of the greatest living Americans--and I say that without reservation--Dr. Francis Collins. He was the head of the NIH under Presidents of both political parties and did a remarkable job. Among other things, he was one of the key elements and contributors in mapping the human genome. That has just transformed a whole area of medical research. I said to Dr. Collins when I went out to see him: I want to help the National Institutes of Health with medical research. I know there was a time when a bipartisan coalition doubled your budget. That coalition should be remembered on the floor of the Senate. It was Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania; Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa; and John Porter, a Republican Congressman from the North Shore of the State of Illinois. The three of them got together and doubled the budget for the National Institutes of Health. I said to Dr. Collins: I want to do something that helps you. What can I do? He said: Work to give us 5 percent real growth every single year. Do you know why? He said: Our researchers aren't sure you are going to be there next year, Congress. They are not sure you are going to fund their projects. So they don't follow through to the end, as they should. They lose patience and end up in some other place. If you can give them a reliable budget each year for medical research, they will continue their research and find dramatic breakthroughs. In the words of Dr. Collins, he said: We can light up the scoreboard if you will make that commitment. I came back here and talked to a number of my colleagues. I talked to Roy Blunt--now retired--from the State of Missouri. I talked to Patty Murray--of course still serving here and now chairing the Senate Appropriations Committee--from the State of Washington. I spoke to Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee. The four of us got together and put together a bipartisan team, and we achieved that goal of 5 percent real growth for 8 years. We went from $30 billion at the NIH to $40 billion at the NIH, and it makes a big difference. It made a big difference when the pandemic struck. We are doing things now that really do improve the likelihood of finding cures for many diseases, and I want to continue with that. I am glad to report that President Biden's budget does just that. That is the kind of commitment we need to make in the Senate on a bipartisan basis for at least another decade. The President's plan also strengths border security and the U.S. immigration system. There is no excuse why we have not rewritten our terrible immigration laws, our broken immigration system, in almost 30 years--30 years, since Ronald Reagan was President. That was the last time we ever agreed on any significant changes in immigration policy. The world has changed dramatically. America has changed, and we still are laboring under the old laws, which do not meet today's needs. We need to do more. It is not enough to just appropriate money for border security; we need a plan that makes sense, that reflects our values as a nation of immigrants, which reflects the values we share when it comes to our future and recognizes the reality that many of these immigrants seeking to be part of the United States are going to make a significant difference not only in the lives of their families but in the lives of Americans all over. These are people who have amazing energy and determination. I have yet to meet one of these new immigrants in my State of Illinois who is asking me where the welfare office is. They are asking me where they can go to work, and they are ready to roll up their sleeves and start working immediately. They are wonderful, ingenious, innovative, hard-charging people, and we need them in our future. It is time to wake up to the reality. Having a system of orderly immigration in this country is the best thing to make sure we keep our labor pool strong and the best innovation available in entrepreneurial pursuits. The President's budget also increases defense spending to ensure that we can deter any threats from China, Russia, Iran, or any other country that threatens us. It maintains our commitment to the brave fighters and people of Ukraine who are on the frontline of freedom in today's world. I just read over the weekend where the Governor from the State of Florida really questioned whether we ought to be doing anything to help the people in Ukraine. I couldn't believe it when I read it, but I guess in politics, almost anything can happen. To think that we would turn our backs now on these brave Ukrainians who for more than a year have fought off Vladimir Putin and his thugs invading their country in an unprovoked invasion is just, in my mind, mindless. If we can't stand up for the values of the Ukrainian people and stop this kind of ruthless, war-crime behavior by Vladimir Putin, shame on us. The United States needs to stand with the people of Ukraine, who are literally giving their lives on a daily basis for the future of their nation. I might add, the President's budget honors Americans' commitment to ourmilitary veterans, boosting investments in veterans' health and funding the PACT Act, which is going to allow those who were injured in service to our country by burn pits, for example, an opportunity to get the best quality medical care and to care for veterans sickened by service-connected exposure to toxic hazards. This is important: According to the White House, if you earn less than $400,000 a year, the President's budget won't raise your taxes one dollar. That bears repeating. If your family earns less than $400,000 a year, your taxes under the President's budget will not go up one penny. He made that promise when he ran, and he has stuck with it. The President pays for this plan by making the ultrawealthy, over $400,000, and big corporations finally pay their fair share. When 55 of the largest corporations in America paid no taxes--zero--last year, that is not a conservative precept; that is a big con, and it is not fair. Now, we know the President's plan is just an opening bid of what promises to be a long, complicated budget process. We will undoubtedly see alternative proposals from both sides of the aisle. That is the nature of negotiations and debate. But it does take two sides. I have to join with the Democratic leader in the Senate to say: Speaker McCarthy, where is your plan? Where is your budget? You talk big, but you don't produce anything. We want to see it. During the last administration, our Republican colleagues voted to add nearly $8 trillion to the national debt. From the last administration was the single-largest increase in America's national debt than any other previous President. That is nearly one-quarter of all the debt accumulated since the beginning of this Nation. It happened in the last 4 years under the previous President. Most of the $8 trillion in new debt was piled on before the pandemic. A lot of it was spent on tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America and the corporations they own. Now they say they want to eliminate the deficit in a decade. As Senator Schumer said earlier, it just doesn't pass the laugh test, let alone the math test. What is the plan to do that? Put it on paper. Put it on the table, and let's see it, Speaker McCarthy. Are you going to cut education? healthcare? medical research? aid for veterans? FEMA? The President's plan is on the table. Republicans have a responsibility to come up with a credible, serious counteroffer, not just bumper sticker slogans. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-14-pt1-PgS756-6 | null | 6,003 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | Budget Mr. President, there is an old saying that there aren't a lot of atheists in foxholes. In my experience, there aren't a lot of unyielding, uncompromising, fiscally conservative, so-called budget hawks when a disaster hits. It gets personal. When tornadoes rip across your State or hurricanes devastate your community, when a cold snap takes down the electric grid in your State, when blazing heat sets off raging wildfires, when a freight train haulingtoxic chemicals derails and explodes into a raging fireball, you don't find a platoon of Ayn Rand-quoting ideologues that really come to the scene and want to be heard. People want to see FEMA and other government Agencies on the scene helping as quickly as possible. They want to know that their government is there to help when it is needed. When it gets right down to it, we Americans face a fundamental choice. Do we want a Federal Government that is there when we need a hand or do we want a government that will preach to us: Sorry. You are on your own, Mr. Taxpayer? Do we want a government that is farsighted enough to plant the American flag on new industries and inventions for the future or do we plan on leaving these transformative discoveries--the Moonshots of this century--to China? President Biden told us last week where he stands on these basic questions when he proposed his budget to Congress. It is a plan that protects Social Security, strengthens Medicare, and adds 25 years of additional solvency to the Medicare Program. The President's budget plan gives working families help with the basics--affordable, reliable healthcare coverage, including savings on prescription drugs, which the Democratic leader just noted when it came to insulin. The President's budget invests in affordable housing and quality childcare. It invests in community colleges to educate skilled workers that our economy desperately needs and helps students land good-paying jobs and get a start on a 4-year degree. The President's budget restores the enhanced child tax credit, which helped cut poverty among children in the United States in half when we included it during the pandemic. We are, in fact, the richest Nation on Earth, yet, shamefully, we have the highest child poverty rate among all advanced nations. If the superwealthy can claim tax breaks on their yachts, surely we can find affordable tax credits to help working families care for their kids. President Reagan called another part of the Tax Code--the earned income tax credit--the best anti-poverty program ever invented. President Biden is proposing to make the earned income tax credit for childless workers permanent to lift millions of low-wage Americans out of poverty. Isn't that something that should be our aspiration in this country as a high priority? If you say you believe in the dignity of work, if you say you respect men and women who take the bus early in the morning, working maybe two or even three jobs to make ends meet, here is a chance to show our respect for work--support the earned income tax credit. President Biden's budget includes continued funding for a Cancer Moonshot to end cancer as we know it. What family in America hasn't known the heartache personally or among friends or family members and frequently the financial devastation of cancer? Not many. I hope people not only embrace the administration's Cancer Moonshot but will continue the 5-percent real growth in medical research--including the National Institutes of Health--that this Senate has supported on a bipartisan basis for nearly a decade. I went out to National Institutes of Health about 10 years ago, and I met with one of the greatest living Americans--and I say that without reservation--Dr. Francis Collins. He was the head of the NIH under Presidents of both political parties and did a remarkable job. Among other things, he was one of the key elements and contributors in mapping the human genome. That has just transformed a whole area of medical research. I said to Dr. Collins when I went out to see him: I want to help the National Institutes of Health with medical research. I know there was a time when a bipartisan coalition doubled your budget. That coalition should be remembered on the floor of the Senate. It was Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania; Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa; and John Porter, a Republican Congressman from the North Shore of the State of Illinois. The three of them got together and doubled the budget for the National Institutes of Health. I said to Dr. Collins: I want to do something that helps you. What can I do? He said: Work to give us 5 percent real growth every single year. Do you know why? He said: Our researchers aren't sure you are going to be there next year, Congress. They are not sure you are going to fund their projects. So they don't follow through to the end, as they should. They lose patience and end up in some other place. If you can give them a reliable budget each year for medical research, they will continue their research and find dramatic breakthroughs. In the words of Dr. Collins, he said: We can light up the scoreboard if you will make that commitment. I came back here and talked to a number of my colleagues. I talked to Roy Blunt--now retired--from the State of Missouri. I talked to Patty Murray--of course still serving here and now chairing the Senate Appropriations Committee--from the State of Washington. I spoke to Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee. The four of us got together and put together a bipartisan team, and we achieved that goal of 5 percent real growth for 8 years. We went from $30 billion at the NIH to $40 billion at the NIH, and it makes a big difference. It made a big difference when the pandemic struck. We are doing things now that really do improve the likelihood of finding cures for many diseases, and I want to continue with that. I am glad to report that President Biden's budget does just that. That is the kind of commitment we need to make in the Senate on a bipartisan basis for at least another decade. The President's plan also strengths border security and the U.S. immigration system. There is no excuse why we have not rewritten our terrible immigration laws, our broken immigration system, in almost 30 years--30 years, since Ronald Reagan was President. That was the last time we ever agreed on any significant changes in immigration policy. The world has changed dramatically. America has changed, and we still are laboring under the old laws, which do not meet today's needs. We need to do more. It is not enough to just appropriate money for border security; we need a plan that makes sense, that reflects our values as a nation of immigrants, which reflects the values we share when it comes to our future and recognizes the reality that many of these immigrants seeking to be part of the United States are going to make a significant difference not only in the lives of their families but in the lives of Americans all over. These are people who have amazing energy and determination. I have yet to meet one of these new immigrants in my State of Illinois who is asking me where the welfare office is. They are asking me where they can go to work, and they are ready to roll up their sleeves and start working immediately. They are wonderful, ingenious, innovative, hard-charging people, and we need them in our future. It is time to wake up to the reality. Having a system of orderly immigration in this country is the best thing to make sure we keep our labor pool strong and the best innovation available in entrepreneurial pursuits. The President's budget also increases defense spending to ensure that we can deter any threats from China, Russia, Iran, or any other country that threatens us. It maintains our commitment to the brave fighters and people of Ukraine who are on the frontline of freedom in today's world. I just read over the weekend where the Governor from the State of Florida really questioned whether we ought to be doing anything to help the people in Ukraine. I couldn't believe it when I read it, but I guess in politics, almost anything can happen. To think that we would turn our backs now on these brave Ukrainians who for more than a year have fought off Vladimir Putin and his thugs invading their country in an unprovoked invasion is just, in my mind, mindless. If we can't stand up for the values of the Ukrainian people and stop this kind of ruthless, war-crime behavior by Vladimir Putin, shame on us. The United States needs to stand with the people of Ukraine, who are literally giving their lives on a daily basis for the future of their nation. I might add, the President's budget honors Americans' commitment to ourmilitary veterans, boosting investments in veterans' health and funding the PACT Act, which is going to allow those who were injured in service to our country by burn pits, for example, an opportunity to get the best quality medical care and to care for veterans sickened by service-connected exposure to toxic hazards. This is important: According to the White House, if you earn less than $400,000 a year, the President's budget won't raise your taxes one dollar. That bears repeating. If your family earns less than $400,000 a year, your taxes under the President's budget will not go up one penny. He made that promise when he ran, and he has stuck with it. The President pays for this plan by making the ultrawealthy, over $400,000, and big corporations finally pay their fair share. When 55 of the largest corporations in America paid no taxes--zero--last year, that is not a conservative precept; that is a big con, and it is not fair. Now, we know the President's plan is just an opening bid of what promises to be a long, complicated budget process. We will undoubtedly see alternative proposals from both sides of the aisle. That is the nature of negotiations and debate. But it does take two sides. I have to join with the Democratic leader in the Senate to say: Speaker McCarthy, where is your plan? Where is your budget? You talk big, but you don't produce anything. We want to see it. During the last administration, our Republican colleagues voted to add nearly $8 trillion to the national debt. From the last administration was the single-largest increase in America's national debt than any other previous President. That is nearly one-quarter of all the debt accumulated since the beginning of this Nation. It happened in the last 4 years under the previous President. Most of the $8 trillion in new debt was piled on before the pandemic. A lot of it was spent on tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America and the corporations they own. Now they say they want to eliminate the deficit in a decade. As Senator Schumer said earlier, it just doesn't pass the laugh test, let alone the math test. What is the plan to do that? Put it on paper. Put it on the table, and let's see it, Speaker McCarthy. Are you going to cut education? healthcare? medical research? aid for veterans? FEMA? The President's plan is on the table. Republicans have a responsibility to come up with a credible, serious counteroffer, not just bumper sticker slogans. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-14-pt1-PgS756-6 | null | 6,004 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Budget Mr. President, there is an old saying that there aren't a lot of atheists in foxholes. In my experience, there aren't a lot of unyielding, uncompromising, fiscally conservative, so-called budget hawks when a disaster hits. It gets personal. When tornadoes rip across your State or hurricanes devastate your community, when a cold snap takes down the electric grid in your State, when blazing heat sets off raging wildfires, when a freight train haulingtoxic chemicals derails and explodes into a raging fireball, you don't find a platoon of Ayn Rand-quoting ideologues that really come to the scene and want to be heard. People want to see FEMA and other government Agencies on the scene helping as quickly as possible. They want to know that their government is there to help when it is needed. When it gets right down to it, we Americans face a fundamental choice. Do we want a Federal Government that is there when we need a hand or do we want a government that will preach to us: Sorry. You are on your own, Mr. Taxpayer? Do we want a government that is farsighted enough to plant the American flag on new industries and inventions for the future or do we plan on leaving these transformative discoveries--the Moonshots of this century--to China? President Biden told us last week where he stands on these basic questions when he proposed his budget to Congress. It is a plan that protects Social Security, strengthens Medicare, and adds 25 years of additional solvency to the Medicare Program. The President's budget plan gives working families help with the basics--affordable, reliable healthcare coverage, including savings on prescription drugs, which the Democratic leader just noted when it came to insulin. The President's budget invests in affordable housing and quality childcare. It invests in community colleges to educate skilled workers that our economy desperately needs and helps students land good-paying jobs and get a start on a 4-year degree. The President's budget restores the enhanced child tax credit, which helped cut poverty among children in the United States in half when we included it during the pandemic. We are, in fact, the richest Nation on Earth, yet, shamefully, we have the highest child poverty rate among all advanced nations. If the superwealthy can claim tax breaks on their yachts, surely we can find affordable tax credits to help working families care for their kids. President Reagan called another part of the Tax Code--the earned income tax credit--the best anti-poverty program ever invented. President Biden is proposing to make the earned income tax credit for childless workers permanent to lift millions of low-wage Americans out of poverty. Isn't that something that should be our aspiration in this country as a high priority? If you say you believe in the dignity of work, if you say you respect men and women who take the bus early in the morning, working maybe two or even three jobs to make ends meet, here is a chance to show our respect for work--support the earned income tax credit. President Biden's budget includes continued funding for a Cancer Moonshot to end cancer as we know it. What family in America hasn't known the heartache personally or among friends or family members and frequently the financial devastation of cancer? Not many. I hope people not only embrace the administration's Cancer Moonshot but will continue the 5-percent real growth in medical research--including the National Institutes of Health--that this Senate has supported on a bipartisan basis for nearly a decade. I went out to National Institutes of Health about 10 years ago, and I met with one of the greatest living Americans--and I say that without reservation--Dr. Francis Collins. He was the head of the NIH under Presidents of both political parties and did a remarkable job. Among other things, he was one of the key elements and contributors in mapping the human genome. That has just transformed a whole area of medical research. I said to Dr. Collins when I went out to see him: I want to help the National Institutes of Health with medical research. I know there was a time when a bipartisan coalition doubled your budget. That coalition should be remembered on the floor of the Senate. It was Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania; Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa; and John Porter, a Republican Congressman from the North Shore of the State of Illinois. The three of them got together and doubled the budget for the National Institutes of Health. I said to Dr. Collins: I want to do something that helps you. What can I do? He said: Work to give us 5 percent real growth every single year. Do you know why? He said: Our researchers aren't sure you are going to be there next year, Congress. They are not sure you are going to fund their projects. So they don't follow through to the end, as they should. They lose patience and end up in some other place. If you can give them a reliable budget each year for medical research, they will continue their research and find dramatic breakthroughs. In the words of Dr. Collins, he said: We can light up the scoreboard if you will make that commitment. I came back here and talked to a number of my colleagues. I talked to Roy Blunt--now retired--from the State of Missouri. I talked to Patty Murray--of course still serving here and now chairing the Senate Appropriations Committee--from the State of Washington. I spoke to Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee. The four of us got together and put together a bipartisan team, and we achieved that goal of 5 percent real growth for 8 years. We went from $30 billion at the NIH to $40 billion at the NIH, and it makes a big difference. It made a big difference when the pandemic struck. We are doing things now that really do improve the likelihood of finding cures for many diseases, and I want to continue with that. I am glad to report that President Biden's budget does just that. That is the kind of commitment we need to make in the Senate on a bipartisan basis for at least another decade. The President's plan also strengths border security and the U.S. immigration system. There is no excuse why we have not rewritten our terrible immigration laws, our broken immigration system, in almost 30 years--30 years, since Ronald Reagan was President. That was the last time we ever agreed on any significant changes in immigration policy. The world has changed dramatically. America has changed, and we still are laboring under the old laws, which do not meet today's needs. We need to do more. It is not enough to just appropriate money for border security; we need a plan that makes sense, that reflects our values as a nation of immigrants, which reflects the values we share when it comes to our future and recognizes the reality that many of these immigrants seeking to be part of the United States are going to make a significant difference not only in the lives of their families but in the lives of Americans all over. These are people who have amazing energy and determination. I have yet to meet one of these new immigrants in my State of Illinois who is asking me where the welfare office is. They are asking me where they can go to work, and they are ready to roll up their sleeves and start working immediately. They are wonderful, ingenious, innovative, hard-charging people, and we need them in our future. It is time to wake up to the reality. Having a system of orderly immigration in this country is the best thing to make sure we keep our labor pool strong and the best innovation available in entrepreneurial pursuits. The President's budget also increases defense spending to ensure that we can deter any threats from China, Russia, Iran, or any other country that threatens us. It maintains our commitment to the brave fighters and people of Ukraine who are on the frontline of freedom in today's world. I just read over the weekend where the Governor from the State of Florida really questioned whether we ought to be doing anything to help the people in Ukraine. I couldn't believe it when I read it, but I guess in politics, almost anything can happen. To think that we would turn our backs now on these brave Ukrainians who for more than a year have fought off Vladimir Putin and his thugs invading their country in an unprovoked invasion is just, in my mind, mindless. If we can't stand up for the values of the Ukrainian people and stop this kind of ruthless, war-crime behavior by Vladimir Putin, shame on us. The United States needs to stand with the people of Ukraine, who are literally giving their lives on a daily basis for the future of their nation. I might add, the President's budget honors Americans' commitment to ourmilitary veterans, boosting investments in veterans' health and funding the PACT Act, which is going to allow those who were injured in service to our country by burn pits, for example, an opportunity to get the best quality medical care and to care for veterans sickened by service-connected exposure to toxic hazards. This is important: According to the White House, if you earn less than $400,000 a year, the President's budget won't raise your taxes one dollar. That bears repeating. If your family earns less than $400,000 a year, your taxes under the President's budget will not go up one penny. He made that promise when he ran, and he has stuck with it. The President pays for this plan by making the ultrawealthy, over $400,000, and big corporations finally pay their fair share. When 55 of the largest corporations in America paid no taxes--zero--last year, that is not a conservative precept; that is a big con, and it is not fair. Now, we know the President's plan is just an opening bid of what promises to be a long, complicated budget process. We will undoubtedly see alternative proposals from both sides of the aisle. That is the nature of negotiations and debate. But it does take two sides. I have to join with the Democratic leader in the Senate to say: Speaker McCarthy, where is your plan? Where is your budget? You talk big, but you don't produce anything. We want to see it. During the last administration, our Republican colleagues voted to add nearly $8 trillion to the national debt. From the last administration was the single-largest increase in America's national debt than any other previous President. That is nearly one-quarter of all the debt accumulated since the beginning of this Nation. It happened in the last 4 years under the previous President. Most of the $8 trillion in new debt was piled on before the pandemic. A lot of it was spent on tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America and the corporations they own. Now they say they want to eliminate the deficit in a decade. As Senator Schumer said earlier, it just doesn't pass the laugh test, let alone the math test. What is the plan to do that? Put it on paper. Put it on the table, and let's see it, Speaker McCarthy. Are you going to cut education? healthcare? medical research? aid for veterans? FEMA? The President's plan is on the table. Republicans have a responsibility to come up with a credible, serious counteroffer, not just bumper sticker slogans. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-14-pt1-PgS756-6 | null | 6,005 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Budget Mr. President, there is an old saying that there aren't a lot of atheists in foxholes. In my experience, there aren't a lot of unyielding, uncompromising, fiscally conservative, so-called budget hawks when a disaster hits. It gets personal. When tornadoes rip across your State or hurricanes devastate your community, when a cold snap takes down the electric grid in your State, when blazing heat sets off raging wildfires, when a freight train haulingtoxic chemicals derails and explodes into a raging fireball, you don't find a platoon of Ayn Rand-quoting ideologues that really come to the scene and want to be heard. People want to see FEMA and other government Agencies on the scene helping as quickly as possible. They want to know that their government is there to help when it is needed. When it gets right down to it, we Americans face a fundamental choice. Do we want a Federal Government that is there when we need a hand or do we want a government that will preach to us: Sorry. You are on your own, Mr. Taxpayer? Do we want a government that is farsighted enough to plant the American flag on new industries and inventions for the future or do we plan on leaving these transformative discoveries--the Moonshots of this century--to China? President Biden told us last week where he stands on these basic questions when he proposed his budget to Congress. It is a plan that protects Social Security, strengthens Medicare, and adds 25 years of additional solvency to the Medicare Program. The President's budget plan gives working families help with the basics--affordable, reliable healthcare coverage, including savings on prescription drugs, which the Democratic leader just noted when it came to insulin. The President's budget invests in affordable housing and quality childcare. It invests in community colleges to educate skilled workers that our economy desperately needs and helps students land good-paying jobs and get a start on a 4-year degree. The President's budget restores the enhanced child tax credit, which helped cut poverty among children in the United States in half when we included it during the pandemic. We are, in fact, the richest Nation on Earth, yet, shamefully, we have the highest child poverty rate among all advanced nations. If the superwealthy can claim tax breaks on their yachts, surely we can find affordable tax credits to help working families care for their kids. President Reagan called another part of the Tax Code--the earned income tax credit--the best anti-poverty program ever invented. President Biden is proposing to make the earned income tax credit for childless workers permanent to lift millions of low-wage Americans out of poverty. Isn't that something that should be our aspiration in this country as a high priority? If you say you believe in the dignity of work, if you say you respect men and women who take the bus early in the morning, working maybe two or even three jobs to make ends meet, here is a chance to show our respect for work--support the earned income tax credit. President Biden's budget includes continued funding for a Cancer Moonshot to end cancer as we know it. What family in America hasn't known the heartache personally or among friends or family members and frequently the financial devastation of cancer? Not many. I hope people not only embrace the administration's Cancer Moonshot but will continue the 5-percent real growth in medical research--including the National Institutes of Health--that this Senate has supported on a bipartisan basis for nearly a decade. I went out to National Institutes of Health about 10 years ago, and I met with one of the greatest living Americans--and I say that without reservation--Dr. Francis Collins. He was the head of the NIH under Presidents of both political parties and did a remarkable job. Among other things, he was one of the key elements and contributors in mapping the human genome. That has just transformed a whole area of medical research. I said to Dr. Collins when I went out to see him: I want to help the National Institutes of Health with medical research. I know there was a time when a bipartisan coalition doubled your budget. That coalition should be remembered on the floor of the Senate. It was Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania; Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa; and John Porter, a Republican Congressman from the North Shore of the State of Illinois. The three of them got together and doubled the budget for the National Institutes of Health. I said to Dr. Collins: I want to do something that helps you. What can I do? He said: Work to give us 5 percent real growth every single year. Do you know why? He said: Our researchers aren't sure you are going to be there next year, Congress. They are not sure you are going to fund their projects. So they don't follow through to the end, as they should. They lose patience and end up in some other place. If you can give them a reliable budget each year for medical research, they will continue their research and find dramatic breakthroughs. In the words of Dr. Collins, he said: We can light up the scoreboard if you will make that commitment. I came back here and talked to a number of my colleagues. I talked to Roy Blunt--now retired--from the State of Missouri. I talked to Patty Murray--of course still serving here and now chairing the Senate Appropriations Committee--from the State of Washington. I spoke to Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee. The four of us got together and put together a bipartisan team, and we achieved that goal of 5 percent real growth for 8 years. We went from $30 billion at the NIH to $40 billion at the NIH, and it makes a big difference. It made a big difference when the pandemic struck. We are doing things now that really do improve the likelihood of finding cures for many diseases, and I want to continue with that. I am glad to report that President Biden's budget does just that. That is the kind of commitment we need to make in the Senate on a bipartisan basis for at least another decade. The President's plan also strengths border security and the U.S. immigration system. There is no excuse why we have not rewritten our terrible immigration laws, our broken immigration system, in almost 30 years--30 years, since Ronald Reagan was President. That was the last time we ever agreed on any significant changes in immigration policy. The world has changed dramatically. America has changed, and we still are laboring under the old laws, which do not meet today's needs. We need to do more. It is not enough to just appropriate money for border security; we need a plan that makes sense, that reflects our values as a nation of immigrants, which reflects the values we share when it comes to our future and recognizes the reality that many of these immigrants seeking to be part of the United States are going to make a significant difference not only in the lives of their families but in the lives of Americans all over. These are people who have amazing energy and determination. I have yet to meet one of these new immigrants in my State of Illinois who is asking me where the welfare office is. They are asking me where they can go to work, and they are ready to roll up their sleeves and start working immediately. They are wonderful, ingenious, innovative, hard-charging people, and we need them in our future. It is time to wake up to the reality. Having a system of orderly immigration in this country is the best thing to make sure we keep our labor pool strong and the best innovation available in entrepreneurial pursuits. The President's budget also increases defense spending to ensure that we can deter any threats from China, Russia, Iran, or any other country that threatens us. It maintains our commitment to the brave fighters and people of Ukraine who are on the frontline of freedom in today's world. I just read over the weekend where the Governor from the State of Florida really questioned whether we ought to be doing anything to help the people in Ukraine. I couldn't believe it when I read it, but I guess in politics, almost anything can happen. To think that we would turn our backs now on these brave Ukrainians who for more than a year have fought off Vladimir Putin and his thugs invading their country in an unprovoked invasion is just, in my mind, mindless. If we can't stand up for the values of the Ukrainian people and stop this kind of ruthless, war-crime behavior by Vladimir Putin, shame on us. The United States needs to stand with the people of Ukraine, who are literally giving their lives on a daily basis for the future of their nation. I might add, the President's budget honors Americans' commitment to ourmilitary veterans, boosting investments in veterans' health and funding the PACT Act, which is going to allow those who were injured in service to our country by burn pits, for example, an opportunity to get the best quality medical care and to care for veterans sickened by service-connected exposure to toxic hazards. This is important: According to the White House, if you earn less than $400,000 a year, the President's budget won't raise your taxes one dollar. That bears repeating. If your family earns less than $400,000 a year, your taxes under the President's budget will not go up one penny. He made that promise when he ran, and he has stuck with it. The President pays for this plan by making the ultrawealthy, over $400,000, and big corporations finally pay their fair share. When 55 of the largest corporations in America paid no taxes--zero--last year, that is not a conservative precept; that is a big con, and it is not fair. Now, we know the President's plan is just an opening bid of what promises to be a long, complicated budget process. We will undoubtedly see alternative proposals from both sides of the aisle. That is the nature of negotiations and debate. But it does take two sides. I have to join with the Democratic leader in the Senate to say: Speaker McCarthy, where is your plan? Where is your budget? You talk big, but you don't produce anything. We want to see it. During the last administration, our Republican colleagues voted to add nearly $8 trillion to the national debt. From the last administration was the single-largest increase in America's national debt than any other previous President. That is nearly one-quarter of all the debt accumulated since the beginning of this Nation. It happened in the last 4 years under the previous President. Most of the $8 trillion in new debt was piled on before the pandemic. A lot of it was spent on tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America and the corporations they own. Now they say they want to eliminate the deficit in a decade. As Senator Schumer said earlier, it just doesn't pass the laugh test, let alone the math test. What is the plan to do that? Put it on paper. Put it on the table, and let's see it, Speaker McCarthy. Are you going to cut education? healthcare? medical research? aid for veterans? FEMA? The President's plan is on the table. Republicans have a responsibility to come up with a credible, serious counteroffer, not just bumper sticker slogans. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-14-pt1-PgS756-6 | null | 6,006 |
formal | thugs | null | racist | Budget Mr. President, there is an old saying that there aren't a lot of atheists in foxholes. In my experience, there aren't a lot of unyielding, uncompromising, fiscally conservative, so-called budget hawks when a disaster hits. It gets personal. When tornadoes rip across your State or hurricanes devastate your community, when a cold snap takes down the electric grid in your State, when blazing heat sets off raging wildfires, when a freight train haulingtoxic chemicals derails and explodes into a raging fireball, you don't find a platoon of Ayn Rand-quoting ideologues that really come to the scene and want to be heard. People want to see FEMA and other government Agencies on the scene helping as quickly as possible. They want to know that their government is there to help when it is needed. When it gets right down to it, we Americans face a fundamental choice. Do we want a Federal Government that is there when we need a hand or do we want a government that will preach to us: Sorry. You are on your own, Mr. Taxpayer? Do we want a government that is farsighted enough to plant the American flag on new industries and inventions for the future or do we plan on leaving these transformative discoveries--the Moonshots of this century--to China? President Biden told us last week where he stands on these basic questions when he proposed his budget to Congress. It is a plan that protects Social Security, strengthens Medicare, and adds 25 years of additional solvency to the Medicare Program. The President's budget plan gives working families help with the basics--affordable, reliable healthcare coverage, including savings on prescription drugs, which the Democratic leader just noted when it came to insulin. The President's budget invests in affordable housing and quality childcare. It invests in community colleges to educate skilled workers that our economy desperately needs and helps students land good-paying jobs and get a start on a 4-year degree. The President's budget restores the enhanced child tax credit, which helped cut poverty among children in the United States in half when we included it during the pandemic. We are, in fact, the richest Nation on Earth, yet, shamefully, we have the highest child poverty rate among all advanced nations. If the superwealthy can claim tax breaks on their yachts, surely we can find affordable tax credits to help working families care for their kids. President Reagan called another part of the Tax Code--the earned income tax credit--the best anti-poverty program ever invented. President Biden is proposing to make the earned income tax credit for childless workers permanent to lift millions of low-wage Americans out of poverty. Isn't that something that should be our aspiration in this country as a high priority? If you say you believe in the dignity of work, if you say you respect men and women who take the bus early in the morning, working maybe two or even three jobs to make ends meet, here is a chance to show our respect for work--support the earned income tax credit. President Biden's budget includes continued funding for a Cancer Moonshot to end cancer as we know it. What family in America hasn't known the heartache personally or among friends or family members and frequently the financial devastation of cancer? Not many. I hope people not only embrace the administration's Cancer Moonshot but will continue the 5-percent real growth in medical research--including the National Institutes of Health--that this Senate has supported on a bipartisan basis for nearly a decade. I went out to National Institutes of Health about 10 years ago, and I met with one of the greatest living Americans--and I say that without reservation--Dr. Francis Collins. He was the head of the NIH under Presidents of both political parties and did a remarkable job. Among other things, he was one of the key elements and contributors in mapping the human genome. That has just transformed a whole area of medical research. I said to Dr. Collins when I went out to see him: I want to help the National Institutes of Health with medical research. I know there was a time when a bipartisan coalition doubled your budget. That coalition should be remembered on the floor of the Senate. It was Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania; Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa; and John Porter, a Republican Congressman from the North Shore of the State of Illinois. The three of them got together and doubled the budget for the National Institutes of Health. I said to Dr. Collins: I want to do something that helps you. What can I do? He said: Work to give us 5 percent real growth every single year. Do you know why? He said: Our researchers aren't sure you are going to be there next year, Congress. They are not sure you are going to fund their projects. So they don't follow through to the end, as they should. They lose patience and end up in some other place. If you can give them a reliable budget each year for medical research, they will continue their research and find dramatic breakthroughs. In the words of Dr. Collins, he said: We can light up the scoreboard if you will make that commitment. I came back here and talked to a number of my colleagues. I talked to Roy Blunt--now retired--from the State of Missouri. I talked to Patty Murray--of course still serving here and now chairing the Senate Appropriations Committee--from the State of Washington. I spoke to Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee. The four of us got together and put together a bipartisan team, and we achieved that goal of 5 percent real growth for 8 years. We went from $30 billion at the NIH to $40 billion at the NIH, and it makes a big difference. It made a big difference when the pandemic struck. We are doing things now that really do improve the likelihood of finding cures for many diseases, and I want to continue with that. I am glad to report that President Biden's budget does just that. That is the kind of commitment we need to make in the Senate on a bipartisan basis for at least another decade. The President's plan also strengths border security and the U.S. immigration system. There is no excuse why we have not rewritten our terrible immigration laws, our broken immigration system, in almost 30 years--30 years, since Ronald Reagan was President. That was the last time we ever agreed on any significant changes in immigration policy. The world has changed dramatically. America has changed, and we still are laboring under the old laws, which do not meet today's needs. We need to do more. It is not enough to just appropriate money for border security; we need a plan that makes sense, that reflects our values as a nation of immigrants, which reflects the values we share when it comes to our future and recognizes the reality that many of these immigrants seeking to be part of the United States are going to make a significant difference not only in the lives of their families but in the lives of Americans all over. These are people who have amazing energy and determination. I have yet to meet one of these new immigrants in my State of Illinois who is asking me where the welfare office is. They are asking me where they can go to work, and they are ready to roll up their sleeves and start working immediately. They are wonderful, ingenious, innovative, hard-charging people, and we need them in our future. It is time to wake up to the reality. Having a system of orderly immigration in this country is the best thing to make sure we keep our labor pool strong and the best innovation available in entrepreneurial pursuits. The President's budget also increases defense spending to ensure that we can deter any threats from China, Russia, Iran, or any other country that threatens us. It maintains our commitment to the brave fighters and people of Ukraine who are on the frontline of freedom in today's world. I just read over the weekend where the Governor from the State of Florida really questioned whether we ought to be doing anything to help the people in Ukraine. I couldn't believe it when I read it, but I guess in politics, almost anything can happen. To think that we would turn our backs now on these brave Ukrainians who for more than a year have fought off Vladimir Putin and his thugs invading their country in an unprovoked invasion is just, in my mind, mindless. If we can't stand up for the values of the Ukrainian people and stop this kind of ruthless, war-crime behavior by Vladimir Putin, shame on us. The United States needs to stand with the people of Ukraine, who are literally giving their lives on a daily basis for the future of their nation. I might add, the President's budget honors Americans' commitment to ourmilitary veterans, boosting investments in veterans' health and funding the PACT Act, which is going to allow those who were injured in service to our country by burn pits, for example, an opportunity to get the best quality medical care and to care for veterans sickened by service-connected exposure to toxic hazards. This is important: According to the White House, if you earn less than $400,000 a year, the President's budget won't raise your taxes one dollar. That bears repeating. If your family earns less than $400,000 a year, your taxes under the President's budget will not go up one penny. He made that promise when he ran, and he has stuck with it. The President pays for this plan by making the ultrawealthy, over $400,000, and big corporations finally pay their fair share. When 55 of the largest corporations in America paid no taxes--zero--last year, that is not a conservative precept; that is a big con, and it is not fair. Now, we know the President's plan is just an opening bid of what promises to be a long, complicated budget process. We will undoubtedly see alternative proposals from both sides of the aisle. That is the nature of negotiations and debate. But it does take two sides. I have to join with the Democratic leader in the Senate to say: Speaker McCarthy, where is your plan? Where is your budget? You talk big, but you don't produce anything. We want to see it. During the last administration, our Republican colleagues voted to add nearly $8 trillion to the national debt. From the last administration was the single-largest increase in America's national debt than any other previous President. That is nearly one-quarter of all the debt accumulated since the beginning of this Nation. It happened in the last 4 years under the previous President. Most of the $8 trillion in new debt was piled on before the pandemic. A lot of it was spent on tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America and the corporations they own. Now they say they want to eliminate the deficit in a decade. As Senator Schumer said earlier, it just doesn't pass the laugh test, let alone the math test. What is the plan to do that? Put it on paper. Put it on the table, and let's see it, Speaker McCarthy. Are you going to cut education? healthcare? medical research? aid for veterans? FEMA? The President's plan is on the table. Republicans have a responsibility to come up with a credible, serious counteroffer, not just bumper sticker slogans. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-14-pt1-PgS756-6 | null | 6,007 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Budget Mr. President, there is an old saying that there aren't a lot of atheists in foxholes. In my experience, there aren't a lot of unyielding, uncompromising, fiscally conservative, so-called budget hawks when a disaster hits. It gets personal. When tornadoes rip across your State or hurricanes devastate your community, when a cold snap takes down the electric grid in your State, when blazing heat sets off raging wildfires, when a freight train haulingtoxic chemicals derails and explodes into a raging fireball, you don't find a platoon of Ayn Rand-quoting ideologues that really come to the scene and want to be heard. People want to see FEMA and other government Agencies on the scene helping as quickly as possible. They want to know that their government is there to help when it is needed. When it gets right down to it, we Americans face a fundamental choice. Do we want a Federal Government that is there when we need a hand or do we want a government that will preach to us: Sorry. You are on your own, Mr. Taxpayer? Do we want a government that is farsighted enough to plant the American flag on new industries and inventions for the future or do we plan on leaving these transformative discoveries--the Moonshots of this century--to China? President Biden told us last week where he stands on these basic questions when he proposed his budget to Congress. It is a plan that protects Social Security, strengthens Medicare, and adds 25 years of additional solvency to the Medicare Program. The President's budget plan gives working families help with the basics--affordable, reliable healthcare coverage, including savings on prescription drugs, which the Democratic leader just noted when it came to insulin. The President's budget invests in affordable housing and quality childcare. It invests in community colleges to educate skilled workers that our economy desperately needs and helps students land good-paying jobs and get a start on a 4-year degree. The President's budget restores the enhanced child tax credit, which helped cut poverty among children in the United States in half when we included it during the pandemic. We are, in fact, the richest Nation on Earth, yet, shamefully, we have the highest child poverty rate among all advanced nations. If the superwealthy can claim tax breaks on their yachts, surely we can find affordable tax credits to help working families care for their kids. President Reagan called another part of the Tax Code--the earned income tax credit--the best anti-poverty program ever invented. President Biden is proposing to make the earned income tax credit for childless workers permanent to lift millions of low-wage Americans out of poverty. Isn't that something that should be our aspiration in this country as a high priority? If you say you believe in the dignity of work, if you say you respect men and women who take the bus early in the morning, working maybe two or even three jobs to make ends meet, here is a chance to show our respect for work--support the earned income tax credit. President Biden's budget includes continued funding for a Cancer Moonshot to end cancer as we know it. What family in America hasn't known the heartache personally or among friends or family members and frequently the financial devastation of cancer? Not many. I hope people not only embrace the administration's Cancer Moonshot but will continue the 5-percent real growth in medical research--including the National Institutes of Health--that this Senate has supported on a bipartisan basis for nearly a decade. I went out to National Institutes of Health about 10 years ago, and I met with one of the greatest living Americans--and I say that without reservation--Dr. Francis Collins. He was the head of the NIH under Presidents of both political parties and did a remarkable job. Among other things, he was one of the key elements and contributors in mapping the human genome. That has just transformed a whole area of medical research. I said to Dr. Collins when I went out to see him: I want to help the National Institutes of Health with medical research. I know there was a time when a bipartisan coalition doubled your budget. That coalition should be remembered on the floor of the Senate. It was Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania; Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa; and John Porter, a Republican Congressman from the North Shore of the State of Illinois. The three of them got together and doubled the budget for the National Institutes of Health. I said to Dr. Collins: I want to do something that helps you. What can I do? He said: Work to give us 5 percent real growth every single year. Do you know why? He said: Our researchers aren't sure you are going to be there next year, Congress. They are not sure you are going to fund their projects. So they don't follow through to the end, as they should. They lose patience and end up in some other place. If you can give them a reliable budget each year for medical research, they will continue their research and find dramatic breakthroughs. In the words of Dr. Collins, he said: We can light up the scoreboard if you will make that commitment. I came back here and talked to a number of my colleagues. I talked to Roy Blunt--now retired--from the State of Missouri. I talked to Patty Murray--of course still serving here and now chairing the Senate Appropriations Committee--from the State of Washington. I spoke to Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee. The four of us got together and put together a bipartisan team, and we achieved that goal of 5 percent real growth for 8 years. We went from $30 billion at the NIH to $40 billion at the NIH, and it makes a big difference. It made a big difference when the pandemic struck. We are doing things now that really do improve the likelihood of finding cures for many diseases, and I want to continue with that. I am glad to report that President Biden's budget does just that. That is the kind of commitment we need to make in the Senate on a bipartisan basis for at least another decade. The President's plan also strengths border security and the U.S. immigration system. There is no excuse why we have not rewritten our terrible immigration laws, our broken immigration system, in almost 30 years--30 years, since Ronald Reagan was President. That was the last time we ever agreed on any significant changes in immigration policy. The world has changed dramatically. America has changed, and we still are laboring under the old laws, which do not meet today's needs. We need to do more. It is not enough to just appropriate money for border security; we need a plan that makes sense, that reflects our values as a nation of immigrants, which reflects the values we share when it comes to our future and recognizes the reality that many of these immigrants seeking to be part of the United States are going to make a significant difference not only in the lives of their families but in the lives of Americans all over. These are people who have amazing energy and determination. I have yet to meet one of these new immigrants in my State of Illinois who is asking me where the welfare office is. They are asking me where they can go to work, and they are ready to roll up their sleeves and start working immediately. They are wonderful, ingenious, innovative, hard-charging people, and we need them in our future. It is time to wake up to the reality. Having a system of orderly immigration in this country is the best thing to make sure we keep our labor pool strong and the best innovation available in entrepreneurial pursuits. The President's budget also increases defense spending to ensure that we can deter any threats from China, Russia, Iran, or any other country that threatens us. It maintains our commitment to the brave fighters and people of Ukraine who are on the frontline of freedom in today's world. I just read over the weekend where the Governor from the State of Florida really questioned whether we ought to be doing anything to help the people in Ukraine. I couldn't believe it when I read it, but I guess in politics, almost anything can happen. To think that we would turn our backs now on these brave Ukrainians who for more than a year have fought off Vladimir Putin and his thugs invading their country in an unprovoked invasion is just, in my mind, mindless. If we can't stand up for the values of the Ukrainian people and stop this kind of ruthless, war-crime behavior by Vladimir Putin, shame on us. The United States needs to stand with the people of Ukraine, who are literally giving their lives on a daily basis for the future of their nation. I might add, the President's budget honors Americans' commitment to ourmilitary veterans, boosting investments in veterans' health and funding the PACT Act, which is going to allow those who were injured in service to our country by burn pits, for example, an opportunity to get the best quality medical care and to care for veterans sickened by service-connected exposure to toxic hazards. This is important: According to the White House, if you earn less than $400,000 a year, the President's budget won't raise your taxes one dollar. That bears repeating. If your family earns less than $400,000 a year, your taxes under the President's budget will not go up one penny. He made that promise when he ran, and he has stuck with it. The President pays for this plan by making the ultrawealthy, over $400,000, and big corporations finally pay their fair share. When 55 of the largest corporations in America paid no taxes--zero--last year, that is not a conservative precept; that is a big con, and it is not fair. Now, we know the President's plan is just an opening bid of what promises to be a long, complicated budget process. We will undoubtedly see alternative proposals from both sides of the aisle. That is the nature of negotiations and debate. But it does take two sides. I have to join with the Democratic leader in the Senate to say: Speaker McCarthy, where is your plan? Where is your budget? You talk big, but you don't produce anything. We want to see it. During the last administration, our Republican colleagues voted to add nearly $8 trillion to the national debt. From the last administration was the single-largest increase in America's national debt than any other previous President. That is nearly one-quarter of all the debt accumulated since the beginning of this Nation. It happened in the last 4 years under the previous President. Most of the $8 trillion in new debt was piled on before the pandemic. A lot of it was spent on tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America and the corporations they own. Now they say they want to eliminate the deficit in a decade. As Senator Schumer said earlier, it just doesn't pass the laugh test, let alone the math test. What is the plan to do that? Put it on paper. Put it on the table, and let's see it, Speaker McCarthy. Are you going to cut education? healthcare? medical research? aid for veterans? FEMA? The President's plan is on the table. Republicans have a responsibility to come up with a credible, serious counteroffer, not just bumper sticker slogans. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-14-pt1-PgS756-6 | null | 6,008 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Budget Mr. President, there is an old saying that there aren't a lot of atheists in foxholes. In my experience, there aren't a lot of unyielding, uncompromising, fiscally conservative, so-called budget hawks when a disaster hits. It gets personal. When tornadoes rip across your State or hurricanes devastate your community, when a cold snap takes down the electric grid in your State, when blazing heat sets off raging wildfires, when a freight train haulingtoxic chemicals derails and explodes into a raging fireball, you don't find a platoon of Ayn Rand-quoting ideologues that really come to the scene and want to be heard. People want to see FEMA and other government Agencies on the scene helping as quickly as possible. They want to know that their government is there to help when it is needed. When it gets right down to it, we Americans face a fundamental choice. Do we want a Federal Government that is there when we need a hand or do we want a government that will preach to us: Sorry. You are on your own, Mr. Taxpayer? Do we want a government that is farsighted enough to plant the American flag on new industries and inventions for the future or do we plan on leaving these transformative discoveries--the Moonshots of this century--to China? President Biden told us last week where he stands on these basic questions when he proposed his budget to Congress. It is a plan that protects Social Security, strengthens Medicare, and adds 25 years of additional solvency to the Medicare Program. The President's budget plan gives working families help with the basics--affordable, reliable healthcare coverage, including savings on prescription drugs, which the Democratic leader just noted when it came to insulin. The President's budget invests in affordable housing and quality childcare. It invests in community colleges to educate skilled workers that our economy desperately needs and helps students land good-paying jobs and get a start on a 4-year degree. The President's budget restores the enhanced child tax credit, which helped cut poverty among children in the United States in half when we included it during the pandemic. We are, in fact, the richest Nation on Earth, yet, shamefully, we have the highest child poverty rate among all advanced nations. If the superwealthy can claim tax breaks on their yachts, surely we can find affordable tax credits to help working families care for their kids. President Reagan called another part of the Tax Code--the earned income tax credit--the best anti-poverty program ever invented. President Biden is proposing to make the earned income tax credit for childless workers permanent to lift millions of low-wage Americans out of poverty. Isn't that something that should be our aspiration in this country as a high priority? If you say you believe in the dignity of work, if you say you respect men and women who take the bus early in the morning, working maybe two or even three jobs to make ends meet, here is a chance to show our respect for work--support the earned income tax credit. President Biden's budget includes continued funding for a Cancer Moonshot to end cancer as we know it. What family in America hasn't known the heartache personally or among friends or family members and frequently the financial devastation of cancer? Not many. I hope people not only embrace the administration's Cancer Moonshot but will continue the 5-percent real growth in medical research--including the National Institutes of Health--that this Senate has supported on a bipartisan basis for nearly a decade. I went out to National Institutes of Health about 10 years ago, and I met with one of the greatest living Americans--and I say that without reservation--Dr. Francis Collins. He was the head of the NIH under Presidents of both political parties and did a remarkable job. Among other things, he was one of the key elements and contributors in mapping the human genome. That has just transformed a whole area of medical research. I said to Dr. Collins when I went out to see him: I want to help the National Institutes of Health with medical research. I know there was a time when a bipartisan coalition doubled your budget. That coalition should be remembered on the floor of the Senate. It was Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania; Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa; and John Porter, a Republican Congressman from the North Shore of the State of Illinois. The three of them got together and doubled the budget for the National Institutes of Health. I said to Dr. Collins: I want to do something that helps you. What can I do? He said: Work to give us 5 percent real growth every single year. Do you know why? He said: Our researchers aren't sure you are going to be there next year, Congress. They are not sure you are going to fund their projects. So they don't follow through to the end, as they should. They lose patience and end up in some other place. If you can give them a reliable budget each year for medical research, they will continue their research and find dramatic breakthroughs. In the words of Dr. Collins, he said: We can light up the scoreboard if you will make that commitment. I came back here and talked to a number of my colleagues. I talked to Roy Blunt--now retired--from the State of Missouri. I talked to Patty Murray--of course still serving here and now chairing the Senate Appropriations Committee--from the State of Washington. I spoke to Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee. The four of us got together and put together a bipartisan team, and we achieved that goal of 5 percent real growth for 8 years. We went from $30 billion at the NIH to $40 billion at the NIH, and it makes a big difference. It made a big difference when the pandemic struck. We are doing things now that really do improve the likelihood of finding cures for many diseases, and I want to continue with that. I am glad to report that President Biden's budget does just that. That is the kind of commitment we need to make in the Senate on a bipartisan basis for at least another decade. The President's plan also strengths border security and the U.S. immigration system. There is no excuse why we have not rewritten our terrible immigration laws, our broken immigration system, in almost 30 years--30 years, since Ronald Reagan was President. That was the last time we ever agreed on any significant changes in immigration policy. The world has changed dramatically. America has changed, and we still are laboring under the old laws, which do not meet today's needs. We need to do more. It is not enough to just appropriate money for border security; we need a plan that makes sense, that reflects our values as a nation of immigrants, which reflects the values we share when it comes to our future and recognizes the reality that many of these immigrants seeking to be part of the United States are going to make a significant difference not only in the lives of their families but in the lives of Americans all over. These are people who have amazing energy and determination. I have yet to meet one of these new immigrants in my State of Illinois who is asking me where the welfare office is. They are asking me where they can go to work, and they are ready to roll up their sleeves and start working immediately. They are wonderful, ingenious, innovative, hard-charging people, and we need them in our future. It is time to wake up to the reality. Having a system of orderly immigration in this country is the best thing to make sure we keep our labor pool strong and the best innovation available in entrepreneurial pursuits. The President's budget also increases defense spending to ensure that we can deter any threats from China, Russia, Iran, or any other country that threatens us. It maintains our commitment to the brave fighters and people of Ukraine who are on the frontline of freedom in today's world. I just read over the weekend where the Governor from the State of Florida really questioned whether we ought to be doing anything to help the people in Ukraine. I couldn't believe it when I read it, but I guess in politics, almost anything can happen. To think that we would turn our backs now on these brave Ukrainians who for more than a year have fought off Vladimir Putin and his thugs invading their country in an unprovoked invasion is just, in my mind, mindless. If we can't stand up for the values of the Ukrainian people and stop this kind of ruthless, war-crime behavior by Vladimir Putin, shame on us. The United States needs to stand with the people of Ukraine, who are literally giving their lives on a daily basis for the future of their nation. I might add, the President's budget honors Americans' commitment to ourmilitary veterans, boosting investments in veterans' health and funding the PACT Act, which is going to allow those who were injured in service to our country by burn pits, for example, an opportunity to get the best quality medical care and to care for veterans sickened by service-connected exposure to toxic hazards. This is important: According to the White House, if you earn less than $400,000 a year, the President's budget won't raise your taxes one dollar. That bears repeating. If your family earns less than $400,000 a year, your taxes under the President's budget will not go up one penny. He made that promise when he ran, and he has stuck with it. The President pays for this plan by making the ultrawealthy, over $400,000, and big corporations finally pay their fair share. When 55 of the largest corporations in America paid no taxes--zero--last year, that is not a conservative precept; that is a big con, and it is not fair. Now, we know the President's plan is just an opening bid of what promises to be a long, complicated budget process. We will undoubtedly see alternative proposals from both sides of the aisle. That is the nature of negotiations and debate. But it does take two sides. I have to join with the Democratic leader in the Senate to say: Speaker McCarthy, where is your plan? Where is your budget? You talk big, but you don't produce anything. We want to see it. During the last administration, our Republican colleagues voted to add nearly $8 trillion to the national debt. From the last administration was the single-largest increase in America's national debt than any other previous President. That is nearly one-quarter of all the debt accumulated since the beginning of this Nation. It happened in the last 4 years under the previous President. Most of the $8 trillion in new debt was piled on before the pandemic. A lot of it was spent on tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America and the corporations they own. Now they say they want to eliminate the deficit in a decade. As Senator Schumer said earlier, it just doesn't pass the laugh test, let alone the math test. What is the plan to do that? Put it on paper. Put it on the table, and let's see it, Speaker McCarthy. Are you going to cut education? healthcare? medical research? aid for veterans? FEMA? The President's plan is on the table. Republicans have a responsibility to come up with a credible, serious counteroffer, not just bumper sticker slogans. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-14-pt1-PgS756-6 | null | 6,009 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Equal Pay Day Mr. President, on a related note, it was 60 years ago that John Kennedy, as President, signed the Equal Pay Act. The law was simple. Here is what it said: Women should not be paid less than men for the same work--simple. Yet, 60 years later, we are still not there--60 years. Today is Equal Pay Day in America. Let me tell you what that means. This is the day when the average American woman will finally earn as much as the average man did last year. In other words, on average, it takes women 15\1/2\ months to earn as much as men do in America in 12 months. The pay gap persists despite the law I told you about. Here is the reality: Women in America are still paid less than men even when they do exactly the same job. On average, a woman in America makes 82 cents for every dollar a man makes. This means that women who work full time year-round lose up to $400,000 over the course of their working lives. When you include part-time and seasonal workers, women make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. The pay gap gets even wider for women of color, who lose up to $1 million over the course of their working lives. And less pay during your working years means less retirement income, we all know. Apologists offer all kinds of explanations and justifications, but the persistent pay gap among men and women is sexism, plain and simple. And it doesn't just hurt women; it hurts their families, who depend on them. Additionally, while men's wages rise throughout their lives, women's wages rise more slowly, and the gap widens if they have children. President Biden's budget proposal contains a number of important measures that will help working families make ends meet. It includes affordable childcare--what a high priority that is for every working parent--and paid family and medical leave so that women, who are also primary caregivers in most families, don't have to stop working to care for a loved one. But those measures, as necessary as they are, will not close the inexcusable pay gap for women. We need to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, closing loopholes in equal pay after finally giving women the tools they need to hold employers accountable if they break equal pay laws. House and Senate Democrats reintroduced this essential legislation last week. I want to thank my colleague Senator Patty Murray, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, in particular for her leadership on this issue. We are committed to passing the Paycheck Fairness Act, and we need Republicans to make it happen. If they believe in fairness, as I think we all do, if you care about the financial security of working families, stand with us, and let's finally pass this bill. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-14-pt1-PgS758 | null | 6,010 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Willow Project Mr. President, as I am here on the floor today and speaking of great news for Alaskans, I cannot yield the floor without noting the significance of the news yesterday. Yesterday, a record decision was announced by the Biden administration announcing that the Willow Project, in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, has been approved and that ConocoPhillips, the producer, will be allowed to advance under what is now a modified alternative that will allow for three pads of drilling activity in the National Petroleum Reserve. This is significant for Alaska from a jobs perspective. This is going to be about 2,500 jobs to a State that desperately needs that. This will be revenue and income to a State that desperately needs that. Our economy is still suffering in a post-pandemic world. Our economy is still challenged in many, many ways. We are seeing a net outmigration unlike any State in the country. And it is because it is directly tied to the State of our economy. So we recognize that we are a resource-based State. So to be able to access resources not only for the benefit of Alaskans but for the benefit of the country, and, in fairness, for the benefit of our friends and allies who look to us--who look to us--and our resources to be able to help them as well. I have been asked by many, ``What is the Willow Project?'' Well, the Willow Project is an oil project, yes. But Willow represents economic security; it represents energy security; and it represents national security. It was a pretty incredible effort that came together to advance the cause of this. This was not one oil company that is standing off in the corner, saying: We want to be allowed to proceed here. It was an extraordinary coalition of Alaska Native leaders and individuals. It was an extraordinary coalition of labor leaders not only in the State; 100 percent of the labor unions in Alaska support advancing Willow backed by their national unions back here because they know that these will be good-paying jobs. These will be solid union jobs. These will be jobs for the future. It was backed by a coalition of industry leaders, the university, unanimous--unanimous--resolutions out of both Houses of our State legislature. Think about that. We have a pretty broad spectrum across the political spectrum when it comes to our State legislature. So to know that from the southeast all the way to the north and the southwest that Alaskans came together, through their elected representatives, to affirm their support of this project advancing, it was really quite remarkable. It was a united delegation--Senator Sullivan, Representative Peltola, and myself--coming together to lead this effort, working with our Governor. It was a coalition that was remarkable and remarked upon, and rightly so, because there are oftentimes so many matters that draw us apart. And there are--there are--opposing voices to this in Alaska. We understand that. But I think it was so important that the voices of Alaskans--particularly those who live and work and raise their families in the North Slope--that those voices were heard. And what they heard from those who were from the North Slope region are that this is not only jobs in economic opportunity; these are resources that will help us with our quality of life, help us be able to resource and finance the search and rescue that goes on when somebody has gone missing on a hunting trip for their subsistence purposes, to help with the community supports, whether it is through the schools or public safety. The North Slope Borough is very unique in how they provide for all of their services for their residents in their eight communities across that huge borough that stretches all the way across the entire North Slope of the State. And so, for them, this is significant and real in a meaningful way. It means everything to them in terms of health and wellness and life expectancy. As we have seen the benefits of the resources that come to these areas that flow from the oil, we have seen an absolute increase in life expectancy because of the quality of life that then can come with decent housing, with decent healthcare, with access to food and resources. What has been seen up north has been consequential. So this was an issue that when presented to the administration, when the Alaskan voices were allowed to be heard, the administration listened. And I thank them for that. I thank them for allowing those voices to be heard. I also recognize that in addition to allowing Willow to advance, the administration is proposing to submit rulemaking in a period of time, maybe within a matter of weeks, maybe a matter of months, that would provide for special protections--further special protections--within the NPRA. There is much to be seen about what these protections will entail, whether it will allow for any level of activity, whether it be crossings in any way, pipeline or road, in any way. There is much to be learned. The administration has sent that signal that in order to advance the oil production opportunities within the Willow footprint--that vastly reduced footprint--that they want to add additional protections in several different areas. We will evaluate that. We will take a look critically. There is a process that will follow. We understand that. But I think for today and where we are in recognizing the value that Willow will bring to Alaska, that Willow will bring to our country, it is important to applaud the actions of the administration and the President in advancing this. At peak production, Willow is expected to bring online about 180,000 barrels of oil a day. That is significant. It is significant and putting it into context with where the United States has had to turn recently as we have looked to meet demand here in this country. The ask, the willingness to go to Venezuela, to lift sanctions, to ask for more production out of Venezuela--Venezuela will be providing us about 100,000 barrels a day. Think about where we would be if Alaska's Willow opportunity were already online. We would not have had to go to Maduro. We would not have had to go to a country whose environmental track record is abysmal. We would not have to turn to those countries that not only have environmental degradation as they produce their resource but human rights issues that we don't want to see, we don't want to talk about. We just know that for this time we need your oil. We cannot export that environmental consequence. We should be producing where we know we can do it safely, where it is under tight environmental conditions and restrictions and limitations, where the producers will adhere to the rules of the road, the rule of law, that there is a sensitivity to the environment around there as we operate up north. They say that we have some of the tightest environmental conditions on how we access our resources out of the northern region than anywhere--anywhere not only in the country but inthe world. And there is a reason for that. It costs more. It adds to the cost. But there is a sensitivity to the land. And we appreciate that. As an Alaskan, I appreciate that and I expect that and I demand that of the companies. And if you are not willing to operate this way, then you shouldn't be coming to Alaska. But companies that are willing to respect the fact that when the tundra is no longer frozen, there is no exploration activity. There is no work that proceeds in that way off of the tundra. So in Alaska, our season, if you will, is 90 days. It is 90 days. And it is not 90 days in the good weather. It is between basically January and April--the coldest, darkest, harshest time that anyone could be up on the North Slope, much less being outside and working. But that is how we do it because that is when the ground is frozen. That is when we have that license to operate, if you will. And we respect that. And it is not when the companies decide we are done with this aspect of the program. When things start to warm up and start to thaw, that is when you are gone. And you are gone because the State regulators and the Federal regulators have said: Clock is up. You don't have extra additional days because spring is coming. And so think about that. Any other business in the world, can you think about having just a 90-day window of operation? We do a fair amount of that in Alaska because, quite honestly, our seafood industry is certainly that way out in Bristol Bay. We do have a lot of seasonal activity. But think about what that means if you are trying to build a project and you have to stop--stop--after 90 days. Think about what it means to design a project around sensitive areas that may have wildlife or waterfowl that we need to be sensitive. Well, that is what we do. This project--this Willow Project--that was sent back for revision was to make sure that the impact on subsistence hunting, the impact on the animals was not going to be appreciable. And so there is a sensitivity. We get it. We get it. The people who live up there are the first stewards of the land, and they get it. So when you have whaling captains who are standing shoulder to shoulder with the Alaska delegation out in front of the Capitol, standing there saying that we need Willow--we need Willow for our economy, we need Willow for our people, and we will make sure that the subsistence needs of those who live in the area are met. We will make sure that the environmental considerations are met. So we are ready. We are ready to proceed. As I stand here, I am regretful that I think the next phase of this is not necessarily going to be movement towards gaining production; it is going to be movement towards the courts because that is just what seems to happen in every development project in my incredible State. But we are prepared for that as well. We are prepared for that as well because this project is environmentally sound, it is just, it is fair, it is balanced, and it is time. Again, I stand here appreciative that the administration has heard the voice of Alaskans. Now, let's get to work. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-14-pt1-PgS762 | null | 6,011 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to commemorate Sunshine Week. Sunshine Week coincides each year with March 16, one of our Founding Fathers' birthdays: James Madison. Madison is widely known as the father of open government. The sunshine I am talking about isn't the kind that helps the corn grow in Iowa. Sunshine Week is dedicated to promoting government accountability to the source from which all government derives its power: the people. Before joining the Supreme Court in 1916, Justice Louis Brandeis wrote: ``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants: electric light the most efficient policeman.'' As a longtime champion for an open, accessible government, I speak today in support of those enduring principles. In great works of literature, readers often remember a novel's opening line even if they forget the rest. When one hears that line, it immediately calls to mind the entire book. Well the same is true of our Constitution, a document that both defines the powers of theFederal Government and, at the same time, carefully limits those powers. ``We The People.'' These are not the opening words of a novel, but they are just as memorable as the best opening lines in literature. These solemn words form the opening line of our framework of our government, the Constitution. This is not an accident. Our Founders and Framers made a conscious choice to open our sacred charter by calling to mind the source of all government powers, from local school boards to the deliberations of this Chamber: the people of our United States, as James Madison said, acting in their sovereign capacity. These are truths we must repeat often, so that we never forget them. The people in this framework are in control. To use the analogy of the sun, whatever promotes self-governance, spoken of in our Declaration of Independence, is sunshine. Whatever hinders the people in their right to govern their communities is darkness. As the Federal Government has grown in size and scope, all too often bureaucrats prefer to live in the shadows of the bureaucracy. They forget that they are ultimately accountable to the people. Because of this, Congress has passed a series of laws requiring openness and accountability to citizens and taxpayers. Just like we need information from government agencies to decide how to cast many of our votes in Congress, so too do the American people need this information to fulfill their role, and to cast theirs. This week is meant to draw attention to this need for openness, especially the Freedom of Information Act, which requires government Agencies to produce documents enlightening citizens as to what Agencies are doing. There is also the inherent constitutional power that Members of Congress have to conduct oversight and launch investigations. Despite this framework of laws and the bedrock principles of our Constitution, Agencies day in and day out fight tooth and nail so they won't have to turn over records when people file Freedom of Information Act requests and even when Members of Congress make requests for information. The Freedom of Information Act is a key law for providing transparency in government. Exemptions that allow records to be withheld should only be used when necessary and not as an excuse to withhold potentially embarrassing information. Federal Agencies must also reverse the trend of ever-increasing FOIA backlogs. For example, according to annual FOIA reports, the Department of Homeland Security saw its FOIA backlog double at the end of fiscal year 2022 from the previous fiscal year. They are not alone. The Justice Department, Defense Department, and State Department all saw increases in their FOIA backlogs from the prior year. Federal Agencies need to do better. I continue to work for laws that strengthen the Freedom of Information Act and other measures that will ensure the people's business is conducted in public, not in private. I am planning to reintroduce a bipartisan bill to ensure FOIA remains a useful public tool and to push back against recent case law that erodes greater transparency. This bill will restore pro-transparency principles and will make it crystal clear where Congress stands on the public's right to know what our government is doing. To mark ``Sunshine Week,'' I am also introducing the bipartisan Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, which would permit and encourage all Federal courts to welcome cameras into the courtroom. I am also cosponsoring, with Senator Durbin, a companion bill which would require the U.S. Supreme Court to televise the arguments heard before them. I thank my Senate colleagues who are joining me as cosponsors on these important pieces of legislation. I have supported the long overdue release of records on the assassination of President Kennedy. I support efforts and conduct oversight on a daily basis that bring information on our government's operation to the light of day. I have also long supported whistleblowers, who play a vital role in shining the light on waste, fraud, and abuse. By reintroducing the SEC Whistleblower Reform Act, I am working to ensure whistleblowers who report possible violations of our Federal securities laws are fully protected, whether they take their concerns to the SEC or to someone in their company. My office has worked with whistleblowers and groups protecting their rights for decades. It is an essential part of our work. As Agencies all too often resist turning over the information we need to do our jobs, whistleblowers fill that gap with firsthand accounts of potential wrongdoing. To those whistleblowers: You are true patriots. Corruption is a problem in our own government, but it is also a global problem. I support the rights of whistleblowers everywhere in their efforts to bring sunshine to corruption and aid people in their rightful quest to govern themselves. Finally, I have been a long-time supporter of the False Claims Act. Since 1986, when I led the effort to update the False Claims Act, that law has helped the government recover $72 billion in taxpayer money from fraud and likely saved billions more by deterring would be fraudsters. The False Claims Act is a tool by which we can--and must--hold fraudsters accountable. That is why I also reintroduced the bipartisan Administrative False Claims Act again this Congress. That legislation raises the statutory ceiling on claims that can be handled with administrative procedures from $150,000 to $1 million, expands the number of Justice Department officials who can review these claims, and allows the government to recoup costs for investigating and prosecuting these frauds. The legislation makes pursuing fraudsters more efficient. We need to take all possible steps to let the sunshine in. If we do, we will have a better and more accountable government that serves the people as it should. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2023-03-14-pt1-PgS767-4 | null | 6,012 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to acknowledge Bernard E. ``Bernie'' Doyle, who is retiring on 20 April 2023, after more than 40 years of combined military and Federal civil service to our country. After graduating from the George Washington University with a bachelor of arts degree in journalism and speech, Mr. Doyle received his Air Force officer commission in April 1979 as a public affairs officer. With unbounded ambition, Mr. Doyle was selected for the Air Force's Funded Legal Education Program and attended the University of Maryland Law School from 1981 to 1984. Upon his graduation from law school in October 1984, Mr. Doyle entered the second chapter of his military service as a judge advocate in the U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General's Corps and never looked back. Rising through military ranks and responsibilities through the years, Mr. Doyle was promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel and oversaw 11 attorneys in the Air Force Legal Service Agency's Employment Litigation Branch. He also personally conducted over 200 trials and appellate litigation in Federal employment discrimination cases and trial and appellate litigation before military courts martial and the appellate courts for the Air Force and the Armed Forces. Among the highlights of his military legal career was his experience defending the accused in three capital murder courts martial. With humility, he would share the profound impact that this experience had on his formative years as a military officer and an attorney in finding courage and compassion within the military justice system. After his retirement from the Air Force in December 1998, Mr. Doyle continued his public service as an administrative judge with the Merit Systems Protection Board--MSPB--an appeals counsel in the MSPB's Office of the Appeals Counsel, and then as an assistant general counsel for the MSPB Office of the General Counsel. To no one's surprise, Mr. Doyle's managerial skills and legal acumen were quickly recognized by his leaders and peers, which led to his selection as the chief counsel to the vice chairman in a non-career Senior Executive Service position. During Mr. Doyle's 11-year tenure at MSPB, he worked extensively on MSPB precedential opinions and successfully defended MSPB final decisions before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Several of his cases, such as Ward v. U.S. Postal Service, Kirkendall v. Army, Butterbaugh v. Department of Justice, and Becker v. Department of Veterans Affairs, continue to serve as the guiding principles on due process rights for Federal employees and employment benefits and protections for veterans and military servicemembers. Mr. Doyle joined the National Guard Bureau Office of the General Counsel as an associate general counsel in the Litigation and Employment Law Division in September 2014. His leadership and dedication to excellence was critical in managing and advocating forthe National Guard's interests in the most complex novel litigation against the National Guard. Specifically, he worked tirelessly with the Office of the Solicitor General on several cases concerning National Guard members' State and Federal military service, benefits, and employment protections before the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Doyle was also instrumental in drafting and implementing key reform legislation that improved the workplace conditions and benefits for 54,000 National Guard military technicians and civil service employees in the 54 States, Territories, and the District of Columbia. He also led the effort to overhaul the National Guard Discrimination Complaint Program, the first in the program's 21 years of existence, to ensure that the National Guard in the 54 States, Territories, and the District of Columbia maintains a workplace free of unlawful employment discrimination. Mr. Doyle has dedicated his entire career to public service, improving the quality of employment conditions for Federal civilian employees and Air Force and National Guard servicemembers. He did so by changing minds person by person, by litigating case by case, and by providing technical assistance for statutory drafting line by line. Throughout his career, Mr. Doyle also mentored countless employment and labor relations military and civil service attorneys nationwide. For many attorneys, Mr. Doyle was often their first port of call when facing a complicated employment law case or when they just needed words of encouragement. Because of his legal advocacy and effect on those whom he influenced, Mr. Doyle's impact on labor and employment law will be felt for many years to come, as will his impact on the many, many lives he changed for the better. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. VAN HOLLEN | Senate | CREC-2023-03-14-pt1-PgS770-2 | null | 6,013 |
formal | MAGA | null | white supremacist | Russia Mr. President, on Russia, on the same day Russian aircraft intercepted and forced down a U.S. surveillance drone in the Black Sea, it was troubling to hear some on the hard right not condemn Putin so much as excuse him--the hard right, excusing Putin, not even daring to condemn him. One Republican Governor, in particular, said yesterday that defending Ukraine and opposing Putin is not of vital national interest. He called Putin's illegal and unprovoked invasion of another sovereign democracy a ``territorial dispute.'' He basically thinks the United States is wrong to support Ukraine as they fight and die to protect their democracy, and he is certainly not alone in thinking that on the hard right. I have to wonder what he would have thought if he was around in the 1930s. We know what happened then, when many refused to stand up to aggression--a world war resulted. Sadly, these remarks are not unique within the GOP. For years, an isolationist fever has been surging within the hard right, propagated night after night on networks like FOX News. The hard right's isolationism is dangerous. It is un-American, undemocratic, and it is woefully blind to the lessons of history. It is ironic that many on the hard right, which historically opposed communism and authoritarianism, now openly flirt with autocrats like Putin. These MAGA isolationists are making America less safe. They are making our troops less safe, and they are severely undermining American leadership on the world stage. This desire to excuse and validate Putin's goals is one of the many terrible legacies of Donald Trump, and it is as good a reason as any why he and those who think like him should never ever come near the Oval Office ever again. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-15-pt1-PgS782 | null | 6,014 |
formal | banker | null | antisemitic | Bank Failures Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes about President Biden's bailout of the three banks that went under. When I ran for this office in 2016, I observed at that time that one of the problems in America was that we had too many undeserving--I emphasize ``undeserving'' because I don't want to paint too broad of a brush--we had too many undeserving people at the top in America getting bailouts, and we had too many undeserving people at the bottom getting handouts, and the rest of America--most of America in the middle--was getting the bill, and I didn't think that was fair. Apparently, it is still the case today, and I still don't think it is fair. Now, President Biden chose to bail out three of our banks. It was a bailout. You can pretty it up any way you want to, and you can put perfume on a pig, but it still smells like a pig. This was a bailout. It was a bailout for two reasons. No. 1, except for the people who own the stock in the banks and their unsecured creditors, President Biden and his regulators guaranteed that nobody affiliated with these banks would have any losses. And he said that is not a bailout because money is not being provided by the American people; it is being provided by all the other banks in America. Well, Mr. President, you know as well as I do there is no money fairy. There isn't anything free. Anything free, somebody had to work for. By taking the hit--all the banks in America, now, I am referring to--banks are taxpayers. That is point one. But point two, those banks--all the banks in America that are going to have to pay for the President's bailout--they are just going to pass on those costs, including but not limited to their depositors. And, the last time I checked, most depositors and banks in America were taxpayers as well. The second reason President Biden's bailout is a bailout--and this is in the fine print--is that he has set up, I think it is, a $25 billion fund that other banks that are in trouble can borrow from. And this fund, he says, does not come from the American people. It came from the banks. Once again, the costs of it will be passed on by the banks to the depositors, to the taxpayers. But this $25 billion fund that banks that are in trouble can borrow from is set up as follows. The banks can borrow money as they need it, and as collateral they put up their securities. So the President says that is a safe bet. Except, when you read the fine print, you find out that the securities that the banks put up as collateral to borrow money from the American people are not what is called ``mark to market.'' The securities are not put up at their real value. They are put up at the value at the time they were purchased. So if you bought a security that was--let's say, to make it simple--$20, and it is owned by a bank and it is now worth $5, you give that $5 to the $25 billion fund, and you get credit for $10. But it is really worth only $5. I mean, it is a bailout, and I am not going to bubble-wrap it, and I don't think we ought to try to bubble-wrap it to the American people. Now, let me say a word about Silicon Valley Bank. All the bank failures were an abomination, but I think Silicon Valley Bank is symptomatic of the problem among all three. SVB we call it, or Silicon Valley Bank. First of all, Silicon Valley Bank was not broke. It was not an insolvency problem. It wasn't insolvent. Silicon Valley Bank had a liquidity problem. I mean, here is what happened. Silicon Valley Bank took in a whole bunch of deposits on which they were paying an interest rate. And then Silicon Valley Bank took that money and went out and bought a bunch of securities, paying a higher interest rate than Silicon Valley Bank was paying the depositors. You say: That is pretty smart. There is just one problem. The securities that Silicon Valley Bank bought were very sensitive to interest rates, and, as interest rates went up--and they have--the value of those securities went down if Silicon Valley Bank had to sell them. And, sure enough, Silicon Valley Bank got itself in the position of having to sell them, because a lot of its depositors got scared about the bank's position, and other reasons, and said: We want our money back. And Silicon Valley Bank didn't have the money because it had to go sell these securities at a loss, and that put it at risk. That is why it had a liquidity problem that could have been fixed. It wasn't broke. President Biden's bailout could have been easily avoided if we had done--let me put that another way--if three things had happened, not all three but any one of the three things I am about to explain. Let me say that again. President Biden's bailout could have been avoided if one or more of three things had happened: No. 1, if the management of Silicon Valley Bank had known the difference between a banking textbook and an L.L. Bean catalog, Silicon Valley Bank would have never bought securities that are so sensitive to interest rates without hedging that risk. And it is a very easy thing to do. Honestly, it is banking 101. If you buy securities to back your deposits that are very sensitive to interest rates, there are other securities you can buy to hedge that risk so you don't take the risk. I am appalled. The bankers at Silicon Valley Bank didn't do it. I mean, it was bone-deep, down-to-the-marrow stupid. No. 2, OK, Silicon Valley Bank management did it. It was like a rock, only dumber, but they did it. The regulators didn't catch it. There has been a lot of talk that Silicon Valley Bank wasn't being regulated because of a bill passed back in 2018 and 2019. That is not true. Silicon Valley Bank was heavily regulated. It had to file regular reports with the Federal banking regulators. It was subject to stress testing. It was subject to liquidity stress testing. All the regulators had to do was read the reports that Silicon Valley Bank was submitting, and they would have seen the problem. Do you know who solved the problem? Way back in November and October, stock analysts in the private sector that were covering Silicon Valley Bank warned--way back last fall--they said: Do you know what? This bank is setting itself up for a potential liquidity problem. The private sector knew it. Where were the regulators? Where were they? You couldn't have found them with a search party. I guess they were asleep. But this whole debacle could have been avoided if the regulators had just done their job and stepped in and said: Silicon Valley Bank, what you are doing is dumb, and you can't do it anymore. That would have avoided it. The third thing that could have avoided President Biden's bailout--I think the bank went under on a Friday, as I recall. The Federal Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury, the head of the FDIC, and all of the other regulators allowed the bank to go under, instead--instead--of getting on the telephone and calling other banks and saying: I have got a situation here with Silicon Valley Bank. It is not insolvent. It is just illiquid. We want you to buy it. That is what normally happens, and that is all the regulators had to do. Now, why didn't they do that? There has been a lot of talk about, well, they had an auction for the bank and nobody wanted it. That is not true. There were buyers. But the problem was that the people at the FDIC do not like bank mergers. Some bank mergers make sense. Some bank mergers don't make sense. In this case, it would have made extraordinary sense. And so the folks at the FDIC stalled and restalled, and then we had mass panic. Think back to the bailouts in 2008 and 2009. If you are a banker and you get a call from the Secretary of the Treasury, the head of the Federal Reserve, and the head of the FDIC saying: Can we sit down and talk with you and structure the terms by which you would buy this illiquid but still solvent bank, you are going to take that phone call. The regulators didn't do that, and all of this could have been avoided. If we had done any one of those three things--any one of those three things--this mess could have been avoided. With that, I yield--well, let me make just one last comment. I am going to say it again. In 2016, in America, we had too many undeserving people at the time getting bailouts, and we still do today. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-15-pt1-PgS783 | null | 6,015 |
formal | bankers | null | antisemitic | Bank Failures Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes about President Biden's bailout of the three banks that went under. When I ran for this office in 2016, I observed at that time that one of the problems in America was that we had too many undeserving--I emphasize ``undeserving'' because I don't want to paint too broad of a brush--we had too many undeserving people at the top in America getting bailouts, and we had too many undeserving people at the bottom getting handouts, and the rest of America--most of America in the middle--was getting the bill, and I didn't think that was fair. Apparently, it is still the case today, and I still don't think it is fair. Now, President Biden chose to bail out three of our banks. It was a bailout. You can pretty it up any way you want to, and you can put perfume on a pig, but it still smells like a pig. This was a bailout. It was a bailout for two reasons. No. 1, except for the people who own the stock in the banks and their unsecured creditors, President Biden and his regulators guaranteed that nobody affiliated with these banks would have any losses. And he said that is not a bailout because money is not being provided by the American people; it is being provided by all the other banks in America. Well, Mr. President, you know as well as I do there is no money fairy. There isn't anything free. Anything free, somebody had to work for. By taking the hit--all the banks in America, now, I am referring to--banks are taxpayers. That is point one. But point two, those banks--all the banks in America that are going to have to pay for the President's bailout--they are just going to pass on those costs, including but not limited to their depositors. And, the last time I checked, most depositors and banks in America were taxpayers as well. The second reason President Biden's bailout is a bailout--and this is in the fine print--is that he has set up, I think it is, a $25 billion fund that other banks that are in trouble can borrow from. And this fund, he says, does not come from the American people. It came from the banks. Once again, the costs of it will be passed on by the banks to the depositors, to the taxpayers. But this $25 billion fund that banks that are in trouble can borrow from is set up as follows. The banks can borrow money as they need it, and as collateral they put up their securities. So the President says that is a safe bet. Except, when you read the fine print, you find out that the securities that the banks put up as collateral to borrow money from the American people are not what is called ``mark to market.'' The securities are not put up at their real value. They are put up at the value at the time they were purchased. So if you bought a security that was--let's say, to make it simple--$20, and it is owned by a bank and it is now worth $5, you give that $5 to the $25 billion fund, and you get credit for $10. But it is really worth only $5. I mean, it is a bailout, and I am not going to bubble-wrap it, and I don't think we ought to try to bubble-wrap it to the American people. Now, let me say a word about Silicon Valley Bank. All the bank failures were an abomination, but I think Silicon Valley Bank is symptomatic of the problem among all three. SVB we call it, or Silicon Valley Bank. First of all, Silicon Valley Bank was not broke. It was not an insolvency problem. It wasn't insolvent. Silicon Valley Bank had a liquidity problem. I mean, here is what happened. Silicon Valley Bank took in a whole bunch of deposits on which they were paying an interest rate. And then Silicon Valley Bank took that money and went out and bought a bunch of securities, paying a higher interest rate than Silicon Valley Bank was paying the depositors. You say: That is pretty smart. There is just one problem. The securities that Silicon Valley Bank bought were very sensitive to interest rates, and, as interest rates went up--and they have--the value of those securities went down if Silicon Valley Bank had to sell them. And, sure enough, Silicon Valley Bank got itself in the position of having to sell them, because a lot of its depositors got scared about the bank's position, and other reasons, and said: We want our money back. And Silicon Valley Bank didn't have the money because it had to go sell these securities at a loss, and that put it at risk. That is why it had a liquidity problem that could have been fixed. It wasn't broke. President Biden's bailout could have been easily avoided if we had done--let me put that another way--if three things had happened, not all three but any one of the three things I am about to explain. Let me say that again. President Biden's bailout could have been avoided if one or more of three things had happened: No. 1, if the management of Silicon Valley Bank had known the difference between a banking textbook and an L.L. Bean catalog, Silicon Valley Bank would have never bought securities that are so sensitive to interest rates without hedging that risk. And it is a very easy thing to do. Honestly, it is banking 101. If you buy securities to back your deposits that are very sensitive to interest rates, there are other securities you can buy to hedge that risk so you don't take the risk. I am appalled. The bankers at Silicon Valley Bank didn't do it. I mean, it was bone-deep, down-to-the-marrow stupid. No. 2, OK, Silicon Valley Bank management did it. It was like a rock, only dumber, but they did it. The regulators didn't catch it. There has been a lot of talk that Silicon Valley Bank wasn't being regulated because of a bill passed back in 2018 and 2019. That is not true. Silicon Valley Bank was heavily regulated. It had to file regular reports with the Federal banking regulators. It was subject to stress testing. It was subject to liquidity stress testing. All the regulators had to do was read the reports that Silicon Valley Bank was submitting, and they would have seen the problem. Do you know who solved the problem? Way back in November and October, stock analysts in the private sector that were covering Silicon Valley Bank warned--way back last fall--they said: Do you know what? This bank is setting itself up for a potential liquidity problem. The private sector knew it. Where were the regulators? Where were they? You couldn't have found them with a search party. I guess they were asleep. But this whole debacle could have been avoided if the regulators had just done their job and stepped in and said: Silicon Valley Bank, what you are doing is dumb, and you can't do it anymore. That would have avoided it. The third thing that could have avoided President Biden's bailout--I think the bank went under on a Friday, as I recall. The Federal Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury, the head of the FDIC, and all of the other regulators allowed the bank to go under, instead--instead--of getting on the telephone and calling other banks and saying: I have got a situation here with Silicon Valley Bank. It is not insolvent. It is just illiquid. We want you to buy it. That is what normally happens, and that is all the regulators had to do. Now, why didn't they do that? There has been a lot of talk about, well, they had an auction for the bank and nobody wanted it. That is not true. There were buyers. But the problem was that the people at the FDIC do not like bank mergers. Some bank mergers make sense. Some bank mergers don't make sense. In this case, it would have made extraordinary sense. And so the folks at the FDIC stalled and restalled, and then we had mass panic. Think back to the bailouts in 2008 and 2009. If you are a banker and you get a call from the Secretary of the Treasury, the head of the Federal Reserve, and the head of the FDIC saying: Can we sit down and talk with you and structure the terms by which you would buy this illiquid but still solvent bank, you are going to take that phone call. The regulators didn't do that, and all of this could have been avoided. If we had done any one of those three things--any one of those three things--this mess could have been avoided. With that, I yield--well, let me make just one last comment. I am going to say it again. In 2016, in America, we had too many undeserving people at the time getting bailouts, and we still do today. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-15-pt1-PgS783 | null | 6,016 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Bank Failures Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes about President Biden's bailout of the three banks that went under. When I ran for this office in 2016, I observed at that time that one of the problems in America was that we had too many undeserving--I emphasize ``undeserving'' because I don't want to paint too broad of a brush--we had too many undeserving people at the top in America getting bailouts, and we had too many undeserving people at the bottom getting handouts, and the rest of America--most of America in the middle--was getting the bill, and I didn't think that was fair. Apparently, it is still the case today, and I still don't think it is fair. Now, President Biden chose to bail out three of our banks. It was a bailout. You can pretty it up any way you want to, and you can put perfume on a pig, but it still smells like a pig. This was a bailout. It was a bailout for two reasons. No. 1, except for the people who own the stock in the banks and their unsecured creditors, President Biden and his regulators guaranteed that nobody affiliated with these banks would have any losses. And he said that is not a bailout because money is not being provided by the American people; it is being provided by all the other banks in America. Well, Mr. President, you know as well as I do there is no money fairy. There isn't anything free. Anything free, somebody had to work for. By taking the hit--all the banks in America, now, I am referring to--banks are taxpayers. That is point one. But point two, those banks--all the banks in America that are going to have to pay for the President's bailout--they are just going to pass on those costs, including but not limited to their depositors. And, the last time I checked, most depositors and banks in America were taxpayers as well. The second reason President Biden's bailout is a bailout--and this is in the fine print--is that he has set up, I think it is, a $25 billion fund that other banks that are in trouble can borrow from. And this fund, he says, does not come from the American people. It came from the banks. Once again, the costs of it will be passed on by the banks to the depositors, to the taxpayers. But this $25 billion fund that banks that are in trouble can borrow from is set up as follows. The banks can borrow money as they need it, and as collateral they put up their securities. So the President says that is a safe bet. Except, when you read the fine print, you find out that the securities that the banks put up as collateral to borrow money from the American people are not what is called ``mark to market.'' The securities are not put up at their real value. They are put up at the value at the time they were purchased. So if you bought a security that was--let's say, to make it simple--$20, and it is owned by a bank and it is now worth $5, you give that $5 to the $25 billion fund, and you get credit for $10. But it is really worth only $5. I mean, it is a bailout, and I am not going to bubble-wrap it, and I don't think we ought to try to bubble-wrap it to the American people. Now, let me say a word about Silicon Valley Bank. All the bank failures were an abomination, but I think Silicon Valley Bank is symptomatic of the problem among all three. SVB we call it, or Silicon Valley Bank. First of all, Silicon Valley Bank was not broke. It was not an insolvency problem. It wasn't insolvent. Silicon Valley Bank had a liquidity problem. I mean, here is what happened. Silicon Valley Bank took in a whole bunch of deposits on which they were paying an interest rate. And then Silicon Valley Bank took that money and went out and bought a bunch of securities, paying a higher interest rate than Silicon Valley Bank was paying the depositors. You say: That is pretty smart. There is just one problem. The securities that Silicon Valley Bank bought were very sensitive to interest rates, and, as interest rates went up--and they have--the value of those securities went down if Silicon Valley Bank had to sell them. And, sure enough, Silicon Valley Bank got itself in the position of having to sell them, because a lot of its depositors got scared about the bank's position, and other reasons, and said: We want our money back. And Silicon Valley Bank didn't have the money because it had to go sell these securities at a loss, and that put it at risk. That is why it had a liquidity problem that could have been fixed. It wasn't broke. President Biden's bailout could have been easily avoided if we had done--let me put that another way--if three things had happened, not all three but any one of the three things I am about to explain. Let me say that again. President Biden's bailout could have been avoided if one or more of three things had happened: No. 1, if the management of Silicon Valley Bank had known the difference between a banking textbook and an L.L. Bean catalog, Silicon Valley Bank would have never bought securities that are so sensitive to interest rates without hedging that risk. And it is a very easy thing to do. Honestly, it is banking 101. If you buy securities to back your deposits that are very sensitive to interest rates, there are other securities you can buy to hedge that risk so you don't take the risk. I am appalled. The bankers at Silicon Valley Bank didn't do it. I mean, it was bone-deep, down-to-the-marrow stupid. No. 2, OK, Silicon Valley Bank management did it. It was like a rock, only dumber, but they did it. The regulators didn't catch it. There has been a lot of talk that Silicon Valley Bank wasn't being regulated because of a bill passed back in 2018 and 2019. That is not true. Silicon Valley Bank was heavily regulated. It had to file regular reports with the Federal banking regulators. It was subject to stress testing. It was subject to liquidity stress testing. All the regulators had to do was read the reports that Silicon Valley Bank was submitting, and they would have seen the problem. Do you know who solved the problem? Way back in November and October, stock analysts in the private sector that were covering Silicon Valley Bank warned--way back last fall--they said: Do you know what? This bank is setting itself up for a potential liquidity problem. The private sector knew it. Where were the regulators? Where were they? You couldn't have found them with a search party. I guess they were asleep. But this whole debacle could have been avoided if the regulators had just done their job and stepped in and said: Silicon Valley Bank, what you are doing is dumb, and you can't do it anymore. That would have avoided it. The third thing that could have avoided President Biden's bailout--I think the bank went under on a Friday, as I recall. The Federal Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury, the head of the FDIC, and all of the other regulators allowed the bank to go under, instead--instead--of getting on the telephone and calling other banks and saying: I have got a situation here with Silicon Valley Bank. It is not insolvent. It is just illiquid. We want you to buy it. That is what normally happens, and that is all the regulators had to do. Now, why didn't they do that? There has been a lot of talk about, well, they had an auction for the bank and nobody wanted it. That is not true. There were buyers. But the problem was that the people at the FDIC do not like bank mergers. Some bank mergers make sense. Some bank mergers don't make sense. In this case, it would have made extraordinary sense. And so the folks at the FDIC stalled and restalled, and then we had mass panic. Think back to the bailouts in 2008 and 2009. If you are a banker and you get a call from the Secretary of the Treasury, the head of the Federal Reserve, and the head of the FDIC saying: Can we sit down and talk with you and structure the terms by which you would buy this illiquid but still solvent bank, you are going to take that phone call. The regulators didn't do that, and all of this could have been avoided. If we had done any one of those three things--any one of those three things--this mess could have been avoided. With that, I yield--well, let me make just one last comment. I am going to say it again. In 2016, in America, we had too many undeserving people at the time getting bailouts, and we still do today. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-15-pt1-PgS783 | null | 6,017 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Bank Failures Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes about President Biden's bailout of the three banks that went under. When I ran for this office in 2016, I observed at that time that one of the problems in America was that we had too many undeserving--I emphasize ``undeserving'' because I don't want to paint too broad of a brush--we had too many undeserving people at the top in America getting bailouts, and we had too many undeserving people at the bottom getting handouts, and the rest of America--most of America in the middle--was getting the bill, and I didn't think that was fair. Apparently, it is still the case today, and I still don't think it is fair. Now, President Biden chose to bail out three of our banks. It was a bailout. You can pretty it up any way you want to, and you can put perfume on a pig, but it still smells like a pig. This was a bailout. It was a bailout for two reasons. No. 1, except for the people who own the stock in the banks and their unsecured creditors, President Biden and his regulators guaranteed that nobody affiliated with these banks would have any losses. And he said that is not a bailout because money is not being provided by the American people; it is being provided by all the other banks in America. Well, Mr. President, you know as well as I do there is no money fairy. There isn't anything free. Anything free, somebody had to work for. By taking the hit--all the banks in America, now, I am referring to--banks are taxpayers. That is point one. But point two, those banks--all the banks in America that are going to have to pay for the President's bailout--they are just going to pass on those costs, including but not limited to their depositors. And, the last time I checked, most depositors and banks in America were taxpayers as well. The second reason President Biden's bailout is a bailout--and this is in the fine print--is that he has set up, I think it is, a $25 billion fund that other banks that are in trouble can borrow from. And this fund, he says, does not come from the American people. It came from the banks. Once again, the costs of it will be passed on by the banks to the depositors, to the taxpayers. But this $25 billion fund that banks that are in trouble can borrow from is set up as follows. The banks can borrow money as they need it, and as collateral they put up their securities. So the President says that is a safe bet. Except, when you read the fine print, you find out that the securities that the banks put up as collateral to borrow money from the American people are not what is called ``mark to market.'' The securities are not put up at their real value. They are put up at the value at the time they were purchased. So if you bought a security that was--let's say, to make it simple--$20, and it is owned by a bank and it is now worth $5, you give that $5 to the $25 billion fund, and you get credit for $10. But it is really worth only $5. I mean, it is a bailout, and I am not going to bubble-wrap it, and I don't think we ought to try to bubble-wrap it to the American people. Now, let me say a word about Silicon Valley Bank. All the bank failures were an abomination, but I think Silicon Valley Bank is symptomatic of the problem among all three. SVB we call it, or Silicon Valley Bank. First of all, Silicon Valley Bank was not broke. It was not an insolvency problem. It wasn't insolvent. Silicon Valley Bank had a liquidity problem. I mean, here is what happened. Silicon Valley Bank took in a whole bunch of deposits on which they were paying an interest rate. And then Silicon Valley Bank took that money and went out and bought a bunch of securities, paying a higher interest rate than Silicon Valley Bank was paying the depositors. You say: That is pretty smart. There is just one problem. The securities that Silicon Valley Bank bought were very sensitive to interest rates, and, as interest rates went up--and they have--the value of those securities went down if Silicon Valley Bank had to sell them. And, sure enough, Silicon Valley Bank got itself in the position of having to sell them, because a lot of its depositors got scared about the bank's position, and other reasons, and said: We want our money back. And Silicon Valley Bank didn't have the money because it had to go sell these securities at a loss, and that put it at risk. That is why it had a liquidity problem that could have been fixed. It wasn't broke. President Biden's bailout could have been easily avoided if we had done--let me put that another way--if three things had happened, not all three but any one of the three things I am about to explain. Let me say that again. President Biden's bailout could have been avoided if one or more of three things had happened: No. 1, if the management of Silicon Valley Bank had known the difference between a banking textbook and an L.L. Bean catalog, Silicon Valley Bank would have never bought securities that are so sensitive to interest rates without hedging that risk. And it is a very easy thing to do. Honestly, it is banking 101. If you buy securities to back your deposits that are very sensitive to interest rates, there are other securities you can buy to hedge that risk so you don't take the risk. I am appalled. The bankers at Silicon Valley Bank didn't do it. I mean, it was bone-deep, down-to-the-marrow stupid. No. 2, OK, Silicon Valley Bank management did it. It was like a rock, only dumber, but they did it. The regulators didn't catch it. There has been a lot of talk that Silicon Valley Bank wasn't being regulated because of a bill passed back in 2018 and 2019. That is not true. Silicon Valley Bank was heavily regulated. It had to file regular reports with the Federal banking regulators. It was subject to stress testing. It was subject to liquidity stress testing. All the regulators had to do was read the reports that Silicon Valley Bank was submitting, and they would have seen the problem. Do you know who solved the problem? Way back in November and October, stock analysts in the private sector that were covering Silicon Valley Bank warned--way back last fall--they said: Do you know what? This bank is setting itself up for a potential liquidity problem. The private sector knew it. Where were the regulators? Where were they? You couldn't have found them with a search party. I guess they were asleep. But this whole debacle could have been avoided if the regulators had just done their job and stepped in and said: Silicon Valley Bank, what you are doing is dumb, and you can't do it anymore. That would have avoided it. The third thing that could have avoided President Biden's bailout--I think the bank went under on a Friday, as I recall. The Federal Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury, the head of the FDIC, and all of the other regulators allowed the bank to go under, instead--instead--of getting on the telephone and calling other banks and saying: I have got a situation here with Silicon Valley Bank. It is not insolvent. It is just illiquid. We want you to buy it. That is what normally happens, and that is all the regulators had to do. Now, why didn't they do that? There has been a lot of talk about, well, they had an auction for the bank and nobody wanted it. That is not true. There were buyers. But the problem was that the people at the FDIC do not like bank mergers. Some bank mergers make sense. Some bank mergers don't make sense. In this case, it would have made extraordinary sense. And so the folks at the FDIC stalled and restalled, and then we had mass panic. Think back to the bailouts in 2008 and 2009. If you are a banker and you get a call from the Secretary of the Treasury, the head of the Federal Reserve, and the head of the FDIC saying: Can we sit down and talk with you and structure the terms by which you would buy this illiquid but still solvent bank, you are going to take that phone call. The regulators didn't do that, and all of this could have been avoided. If we had done any one of those three things--any one of those three things--this mess could have been avoided. With that, I yield--well, let me make just one last comment. I am going to say it again. In 2016, in America, we had too many undeserving people at the time getting bailouts, and we still do today. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-15-pt1-PgS783 | null | 6,018 |
formal | handouts | null | racist | Bank Failures Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes about President Biden's bailout of the three banks that went under. When I ran for this office in 2016, I observed at that time that one of the problems in America was that we had too many undeserving--I emphasize ``undeserving'' because I don't want to paint too broad of a brush--we had too many undeserving people at the top in America getting bailouts, and we had too many undeserving people at the bottom getting handouts, and the rest of America--most of America in the middle--was getting the bill, and I didn't think that was fair. Apparently, it is still the case today, and I still don't think it is fair. Now, President Biden chose to bail out three of our banks. It was a bailout. You can pretty it up any way you want to, and you can put perfume on a pig, but it still smells like a pig. This was a bailout. It was a bailout for two reasons. No. 1, except for the people who own the stock in the banks and their unsecured creditors, President Biden and his regulators guaranteed that nobody affiliated with these banks would have any losses. And he said that is not a bailout because money is not being provided by the American people; it is being provided by all the other banks in America. Well, Mr. President, you know as well as I do there is no money fairy. There isn't anything free. Anything free, somebody had to work for. By taking the hit--all the banks in America, now, I am referring to--banks are taxpayers. That is point one. But point two, those banks--all the banks in America that are going to have to pay for the President's bailout--they are just going to pass on those costs, including but not limited to their depositors. And, the last time I checked, most depositors and banks in America were taxpayers as well. The second reason President Biden's bailout is a bailout--and this is in the fine print--is that he has set up, I think it is, a $25 billion fund that other banks that are in trouble can borrow from. And this fund, he says, does not come from the American people. It came from the banks. Once again, the costs of it will be passed on by the banks to the depositors, to the taxpayers. But this $25 billion fund that banks that are in trouble can borrow from is set up as follows. The banks can borrow money as they need it, and as collateral they put up their securities. So the President says that is a safe bet. Except, when you read the fine print, you find out that the securities that the banks put up as collateral to borrow money from the American people are not what is called ``mark to market.'' The securities are not put up at their real value. They are put up at the value at the time they were purchased. So if you bought a security that was--let's say, to make it simple--$20, and it is owned by a bank and it is now worth $5, you give that $5 to the $25 billion fund, and you get credit for $10. But it is really worth only $5. I mean, it is a bailout, and I am not going to bubble-wrap it, and I don't think we ought to try to bubble-wrap it to the American people. Now, let me say a word about Silicon Valley Bank. All the bank failures were an abomination, but I think Silicon Valley Bank is symptomatic of the problem among all three. SVB we call it, or Silicon Valley Bank. First of all, Silicon Valley Bank was not broke. It was not an insolvency problem. It wasn't insolvent. Silicon Valley Bank had a liquidity problem. I mean, here is what happened. Silicon Valley Bank took in a whole bunch of deposits on which they were paying an interest rate. And then Silicon Valley Bank took that money and went out and bought a bunch of securities, paying a higher interest rate than Silicon Valley Bank was paying the depositors. You say: That is pretty smart. There is just one problem. The securities that Silicon Valley Bank bought were very sensitive to interest rates, and, as interest rates went up--and they have--the value of those securities went down if Silicon Valley Bank had to sell them. And, sure enough, Silicon Valley Bank got itself in the position of having to sell them, because a lot of its depositors got scared about the bank's position, and other reasons, and said: We want our money back. And Silicon Valley Bank didn't have the money because it had to go sell these securities at a loss, and that put it at risk. That is why it had a liquidity problem that could have been fixed. It wasn't broke. President Biden's bailout could have been easily avoided if we had done--let me put that another way--if three things had happened, not all three but any one of the three things I am about to explain. Let me say that again. President Biden's bailout could have been avoided if one or more of three things had happened: No. 1, if the management of Silicon Valley Bank had known the difference between a banking textbook and an L.L. Bean catalog, Silicon Valley Bank would have never bought securities that are so sensitive to interest rates without hedging that risk. And it is a very easy thing to do. Honestly, it is banking 101. If you buy securities to back your deposits that are very sensitive to interest rates, there are other securities you can buy to hedge that risk so you don't take the risk. I am appalled. The bankers at Silicon Valley Bank didn't do it. I mean, it was bone-deep, down-to-the-marrow stupid. No. 2, OK, Silicon Valley Bank management did it. It was like a rock, only dumber, but they did it. The regulators didn't catch it. There has been a lot of talk that Silicon Valley Bank wasn't being regulated because of a bill passed back in 2018 and 2019. That is not true. Silicon Valley Bank was heavily regulated. It had to file regular reports with the Federal banking regulators. It was subject to stress testing. It was subject to liquidity stress testing. All the regulators had to do was read the reports that Silicon Valley Bank was submitting, and they would have seen the problem. Do you know who solved the problem? Way back in November and October, stock analysts in the private sector that were covering Silicon Valley Bank warned--way back last fall--they said: Do you know what? This bank is setting itself up for a potential liquidity problem. The private sector knew it. Where were the regulators? Where were they? You couldn't have found them with a search party. I guess they were asleep. But this whole debacle could have been avoided if the regulators had just done their job and stepped in and said: Silicon Valley Bank, what you are doing is dumb, and you can't do it anymore. That would have avoided it. The third thing that could have avoided President Biden's bailout--I think the bank went under on a Friday, as I recall. The Federal Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury, the head of the FDIC, and all of the other regulators allowed the bank to go under, instead--instead--of getting on the telephone and calling other banks and saying: I have got a situation here with Silicon Valley Bank. It is not insolvent. It is just illiquid. We want you to buy it. That is what normally happens, and that is all the regulators had to do. Now, why didn't they do that? There has been a lot of talk about, well, they had an auction for the bank and nobody wanted it. That is not true. There were buyers. But the problem was that the people at the FDIC do not like bank mergers. Some bank mergers make sense. Some bank mergers don't make sense. In this case, it would have made extraordinary sense. And so the folks at the FDIC stalled and restalled, and then we had mass panic. Think back to the bailouts in 2008 and 2009. If you are a banker and you get a call from the Secretary of the Treasury, the head of the Federal Reserve, and the head of the FDIC saying: Can we sit down and talk with you and structure the terms by which you would buy this illiquid but still solvent bank, you are going to take that phone call. The regulators didn't do that, and all of this could have been avoided. If we had done any one of those three things--any one of those three things--this mess could have been avoided. With that, I yield--well, let me make just one last comment. I am going to say it again. In 2016, in America, we had too many undeserving people at the time getting bailouts, and we still do today. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-15-pt1-PgS783 | null | 6,019 |
formal | you know who | null | antisemitic | Bank Failures Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes about President Biden's bailout of the three banks that went under. When I ran for this office in 2016, I observed at that time that one of the problems in America was that we had too many undeserving--I emphasize ``undeserving'' because I don't want to paint too broad of a brush--we had too many undeserving people at the top in America getting bailouts, and we had too many undeserving people at the bottom getting handouts, and the rest of America--most of America in the middle--was getting the bill, and I didn't think that was fair. Apparently, it is still the case today, and I still don't think it is fair. Now, President Biden chose to bail out three of our banks. It was a bailout. You can pretty it up any way you want to, and you can put perfume on a pig, but it still smells like a pig. This was a bailout. It was a bailout for two reasons. No. 1, except for the people who own the stock in the banks and their unsecured creditors, President Biden and his regulators guaranteed that nobody affiliated with these banks would have any losses. And he said that is not a bailout because money is not being provided by the American people; it is being provided by all the other banks in America. Well, Mr. President, you know as well as I do there is no money fairy. There isn't anything free. Anything free, somebody had to work for. By taking the hit--all the banks in America, now, I am referring to--banks are taxpayers. That is point one. But point two, those banks--all the banks in America that are going to have to pay for the President's bailout--they are just going to pass on those costs, including but not limited to their depositors. And, the last time I checked, most depositors and banks in America were taxpayers as well. The second reason President Biden's bailout is a bailout--and this is in the fine print--is that he has set up, I think it is, a $25 billion fund that other banks that are in trouble can borrow from. And this fund, he says, does not come from the American people. It came from the banks. Once again, the costs of it will be passed on by the banks to the depositors, to the taxpayers. But this $25 billion fund that banks that are in trouble can borrow from is set up as follows. The banks can borrow money as they need it, and as collateral they put up their securities. So the President says that is a safe bet. Except, when you read the fine print, you find out that the securities that the banks put up as collateral to borrow money from the American people are not what is called ``mark to market.'' The securities are not put up at their real value. They are put up at the value at the time they were purchased. So if you bought a security that was--let's say, to make it simple--$20, and it is owned by a bank and it is now worth $5, you give that $5 to the $25 billion fund, and you get credit for $10. But it is really worth only $5. I mean, it is a bailout, and I am not going to bubble-wrap it, and I don't think we ought to try to bubble-wrap it to the American people. Now, let me say a word about Silicon Valley Bank. All the bank failures were an abomination, but I think Silicon Valley Bank is symptomatic of the problem among all three. SVB we call it, or Silicon Valley Bank. First of all, Silicon Valley Bank was not broke. It was not an insolvency problem. It wasn't insolvent. Silicon Valley Bank had a liquidity problem. I mean, here is what happened. Silicon Valley Bank took in a whole bunch of deposits on which they were paying an interest rate. And then Silicon Valley Bank took that money and went out and bought a bunch of securities, paying a higher interest rate than Silicon Valley Bank was paying the depositors. You say: That is pretty smart. There is just one problem. The securities that Silicon Valley Bank bought were very sensitive to interest rates, and, as interest rates went up--and they have--the value of those securities went down if Silicon Valley Bank had to sell them. And, sure enough, Silicon Valley Bank got itself in the position of having to sell them, because a lot of its depositors got scared about the bank's position, and other reasons, and said: We want our money back. And Silicon Valley Bank didn't have the money because it had to go sell these securities at a loss, and that put it at risk. That is why it had a liquidity problem that could have been fixed. It wasn't broke. President Biden's bailout could have been easily avoided if we had done--let me put that another way--if three things had happened, not all three but any one of the three things I am about to explain. Let me say that again. President Biden's bailout could have been avoided if one or more of three things had happened: No. 1, if the management of Silicon Valley Bank had known the difference between a banking textbook and an L.L. Bean catalog, Silicon Valley Bank would have never bought securities that are so sensitive to interest rates without hedging that risk. And it is a very easy thing to do. Honestly, it is banking 101. If you buy securities to back your deposits that are very sensitive to interest rates, there are other securities you can buy to hedge that risk so you don't take the risk. I am appalled. The bankers at Silicon Valley Bank didn't do it. I mean, it was bone-deep, down-to-the-marrow stupid. No. 2, OK, Silicon Valley Bank management did it. It was like a rock, only dumber, but they did it. The regulators didn't catch it. There has been a lot of talk that Silicon Valley Bank wasn't being regulated because of a bill passed back in 2018 and 2019. That is not true. Silicon Valley Bank was heavily regulated. It had to file regular reports with the Federal banking regulators. It was subject to stress testing. It was subject to liquidity stress testing. All the regulators had to do was read the reports that Silicon Valley Bank was submitting, and they would have seen the problem. Do you know who solved the problem? Way back in November and October, stock analysts in the private sector that were covering Silicon Valley Bank warned--way back last fall--they said: Do you know what? This bank is setting itself up for a potential liquidity problem. The private sector knew it. Where were the regulators? Where were they? You couldn't have found them with a search party. I guess they were asleep. But this whole debacle could have been avoided if the regulators had just done their job and stepped in and said: Silicon Valley Bank, what you are doing is dumb, and you can't do it anymore. That would have avoided it. The third thing that could have avoided President Biden's bailout--I think the bank went under on a Friday, as I recall. The Federal Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury, the head of the FDIC, and all of the other regulators allowed the bank to go under, instead--instead--of getting on the telephone and calling other banks and saying: I have got a situation here with Silicon Valley Bank. It is not insolvent. It is just illiquid. We want you to buy it. That is what normally happens, and that is all the regulators had to do. Now, why didn't they do that? There has been a lot of talk about, well, they had an auction for the bank and nobody wanted it. That is not true. There were buyers. But the problem was that the people at the FDIC do not like bank mergers. Some bank mergers make sense. Some bank mergers don't make sense. In this case, it would have made extraordinary sense. And so the folks at the FDIC stalled and restalled, and then we had mass panic. Think back to the bailouts in 2008 and 2009. If you are a banker and you get a call from the Secretary of the Treasury, the head of the Federal Reserve, and the head of the FDIC saying: Can we sit down and talk with you and structure the terms by which you would buy this illiquid but still solvent bank, you are going to take that phone call. The regulators didn't do that, and all of this could have been avoided. If we had done any one of those three things--any one of those three things--this mess could have been avoided. With that, I yield--well, let me make just one last comment. I am going to say it again. In 2016, in America, we had too many undeserving people at the time getting bailouts, and we still do today. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-15-pt1-PgS783 | null | 6,020 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-676. A communication from the Acting Chief of the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached `Stabilizing Braces' '' (RIN1140-AA55) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-677. A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a legislative proposal entitled ``Authority to Permit Continued Presence in the United States''; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-678. A communication from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``General Schedule Locality Pay Areas'' (RIN3206-AO40) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-679. A communication from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Prevailing Rate Systems; Definition of San Mateo County, California, to a Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Area'' (RIN3206-AO46) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-680. A communication from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Term and Temporary Employment'' (RIN3206-AN92) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-681. A communication from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Enhancing Stability and Flexibility for the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP)-Abbreviated Underwriting, Applications for FLTCIP Coverage, and Technical Corrections'' (RIN3206-AO21) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-682. A communication from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Probation on Initial Appointment to a Competitive Position, Performance-Based Reduction in Grade and Removal Actions and Adverse Actions'' (RIN3206- AO23) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-683. A communication from the Associate General Counsel for General Law, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Assistant Secretary/Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-684. A communication from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, the President's Pay Agent, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the extension of locality based comparability payments; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-685. A communication from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Office of Inspector General's Semiannual Report and the Management Response for the period of April 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-686. A communication from the Comptroller General of the United States, Government Accountability Office, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the Office's audit of the United States government's fiscal years 2022 and 2021 consolidated financial statements; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-687. A communication from the Board Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Administration's Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) and Privacy Management Report; to the Committees on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; Commerce, Science, and Transportation; and Appropriations. EC-688. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Native American Programs'' (RIN0970-AC88) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 6, 2023; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. EC-689. A communication from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Change in Rates that VA Pays for Special Modes of Transportation'' (RIN2900-AP89) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs . EC-690. A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the continuation of the national emergency with respect to Cuba that was originally declared in Proclamation 6867 of March 1, 1996; to the Committee on Commerce, Science , and Transportation. EC-691. A communication from the Attorney for Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of the General Counsel, Consumer Product Safety Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Standard for Operating Cords on Custom Window Coverings'' (Docket No. CPSC-2013- 0028) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-692. A communication from the Biologist Office of Protected Resources Directorate, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations'' (RIN0648-BM05) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 6, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-693. A communication from the Deputy Managing Director, Office of Managing Director, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of the Space Bureau and the Office of International Affairs and Reorganization of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau and the Office of the Managing Director'' ((FCC 23-1) (MD Docket No. 23-12)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-694. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Normal and Transport Category Rotorcraft Certification'' ((RIN2120-AK80) (Docket No. FAA-2017-0990)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-695. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 4046'' ((RIN2120- AA65) (Docket No. 31470)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-696. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 4045'' ((RIN2120- AA65) (Docket No. 31469)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-697. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 570'' ((RIN2120-AA63) (Docket No. 31471)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 19, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-698. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Multiple Missouri Towns'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1317)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-699. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Marshalltown, IA'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022- 1224)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-700. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Union Springs, AL'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1262)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-701. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Fertile, MN'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0352)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-702. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Austin, MN'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1464)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-703. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Minocqua- Woodruff, WI'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1465)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-704. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class D and E Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Topeka, KS'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1557)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-705. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Alton/St. Louis, IL'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1466)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-706. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Mesquite and Dallas-Fort Worth, TX'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1556)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-707. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Route T-465; Northcentral United States'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1260)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-708. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes; Eastern United States'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0932)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-709. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Restricted Areas-R2204 Oliktok Point High and R-2204 Oliktok Point Low; AK'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2023-0307)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-15-pt1-PgS794-5 | null | 6,021 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-676. A communication from the Acting Chief of the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached `Stabilizing Braces' '' (RIN1140-AA55) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-677. A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a legislative proposal entitled ``Authority to Permit Continued Presence in the United States''; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-678. A communication from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``General Schedule Locality Pay Areas'' (RIN3206-AO40) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-679. A communication from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Prevailing Rate Systems; Definition of San Mateo County, California, to a Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Area'' (RIN3206-AO46) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-680. A communication from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Term and Temporary Employment'' (RIN3206-AN92) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-681. A communication from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Enhancing Stability and Flexibility for the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP)-Abbreviated Underwriting, Applications for FLTCIP Coverage, and Technical Corrections'' (RIN3206-AO21) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-682. A communication from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Probation on Initial Appointment to a Competitive Position, Performance-Based Reduction in Grade and Removal Actions and Adverse Actions'' (RIN3206- AO23) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-683. A communication from the Associate General Counsel for General Law, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Assistant Secretary/Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-684. A communication from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, the President's Pay Agent, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the extension of locality based comparability payments; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-685. A communication from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Office of Inspector General's Semiannual Report and the Management Response for the period of April 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-686. A communication from the Comptroller General of the United States, Government Accountability Office, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the Office's audit of the United States government's fiscal years 2022 and 2021 consolidated financial statements; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-687. A communication from the Board Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Administration's Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) and Privacy Management Report; to the Committees on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; Commerce, Science, and Transportation; and Appropriations. EC-688. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Native American Programs'' (RIN0970-AC88) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 6, 2023; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. EC-689. A communication from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Change in Rates that VA Pays for Special Modes of Transportation'' (RIN2900-AP89) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs . EC-690. A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the continuation of the national emergency with respect to Cuba that was originally declared in Proclamation 6867 of March 1, 1996; to the Committee on Commerce, Science , and Transportation. EC-691. A communication from the Attorney for Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of the General Counsel, Consumer Product Safety Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Standard for Operating Cords on Custom Window Coverings'' (Docket No. CPSC-2013- 0028) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-692. A communication from the Biologist Office of Protected Resources Directorate, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations'' (RIN0648-BM05) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 6, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-693. A communication from the Deputy Managing Director, Office of Managing Director, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of the Space Bureau and the Office of International Affairs and Reorganization of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau and the Office of the Managing Director'' ((FCC 23-1) (MD Docket No. 23-12)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-694. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Normal and Transport Category Rotorcraft Certification'' ((RIN2120-AK80) (Docket No. FAA-2017-0990)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-695. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 4046'' ((RIN2120- AA65) (Docket No. 31470)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-696. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 4045'' ((RIN2120- AA65) (Docket No. 31469)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-697. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 570'' ((RIN2120-AA63) (Docket No. 31471)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 19, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-698. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Multiple Missouri Towns'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1317)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-699. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Marshalltown, IA'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022- 1224)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-700. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Union Springs, AL'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1262)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-701. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Fertile, MN'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0352)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-702. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Austin, MN'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1464)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-703. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Minocqua- Woodruff, WI'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1465)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-704. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class D and E Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Topeka, KS'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1557)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-705. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Alton/St. Louis, IL'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1466)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-706. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Mesquite and Dallas-Fort Worth, TX'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1556)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-707. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Route T-465; Northcentral United States'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1260)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-708. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes; Eastern United States'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0932)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-709. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Restricted Areas-R2204 Oliktok Point High and R-2204 Oliktok Point Low; AK'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2023-0307)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 27, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-15-pt1-PgS794-5 | null | 6,022 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. TESTER (for himself and Ms. Collins) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 112 Whereas public education is a significant institution in a 21st-century democracy; Whereas public schools in the United States educate students about the values and beliefs that hold the individuals of the United States together as a nation; Whereas public schools prepare young individuals of the United States to contribute to the society, economy, and citizenry of the country; Whereas 90 percent of children in the United States attend public schools; Whereas Federal, State, and local lawmakers should-- (1) prioritize support for strengthening the public schools of the United States; (2) empower superintendents, principals, and other school leaders to implement, manage, and lead school districts and schools in partnership with educators, parents, and other local education stakeholders; and (3) support services and programs that are critical to helping students engage in learning, including counseling, extracurricular activities, and mental health support; Whereas public schools should foster inclusive, safe, and high-quality environments in which children can learn to think critically, problem solve, and build relationships; Whereas public schools should provide environments in which all students have the opportunity to succeed beginning in their earliest years, regardless of who a student is or where a student lives; Whereas Congress should support-- (1) efforts to advance equal opportunity and excellence in public education; (2) efforts to implement evidence-based practices in public education; and (3) continuous improvements to public education; Whereas every child should-- (1) receive an education that helps the child reach the full potential of the child; and (2) attend a school that offers a high-quality educational experience; Whereas Federal funding, in addition to State and local funds, supports the access of students to inviting classrooms, well-prepared educators, and services to support healthy students, including nutrition and afterschool programs; Whereas teachers, paraprofessionals, and principals should provide students with a well-rounded education and strive to create joy in learning; Whereas superintendents, principals, other school leaders, teachers, paraprofessionals, and parents make public schools vital components of communities and are working hard to improve educational outcomes for children across the country; and Whereas the week of February 27 through March 3, 2023, is an appropriate period to designate as ``Public Schools Week'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate designates the week of February 27 through March 3, 2023, as ``Public Schools Week''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-15-pt1-PgS805-3 | null | 6,023 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Mr. TESTER (for himself and Ms. Collins) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 112 Whereas public education is a significant institution in a 21st-century democracy; Whereas public schools in the United States educate students about the values and beliefs that hold the individuals of the United States together as a nation; Whereas public schools prepare young individuals of the United States to contribute to the society, economy, and citizenry of the country; Whereas 90 percent of children in the United States attend public schools; Whereas Federal, State, and local lawmakers should-- (1) prioritize support for strengthening the public schools of the United States; (2) empower superintendents, principals, and other school leaders to implement, manage, and lead school districts and schools in partnership with educators, parents, and other local education stakeholders; and (3) support services and programs that are critical to helping students engage in learning, including counseling, extracurricular activities, and mental health support; Whereas public schools should foster inclusive, safe, and high-quality environments in which children can learn to think critically, problem solve, and build relationships; Whereas public schools should provide environments in which all students have the opportunity to succeed beginning in their earliest years, regardless of who a student is or where a student lives; Whereas Congress should support-- (1) efforts to advance equal opportunity and excellence in public education; (2) efforts to implement evidence-based practices in public education; and (3) continuous improvements to public education; Whereas every child should-- (1) receive an education that helps the child reach the full potential of the child; and (2) attend a school that offers a high-quality educational experience; Whereas Federal funding, in addition to State and local funds, supports the access of students to inviting classrooms, well-prepared educators, and services to support healthy students, including nutrition and afterschool programs; Whereas teachers, paraprofessionals, and principals should provide students with a well-rounded education and strive to create joy in learning; Whereas superintendents, principals, other school leaders, teachers, paraprofessionals, and parents make public schools vital components of communities and are working hard to improve educational outcomes for children across the country; and Whereas the week of February 27 through March 3, 2023, is an appropriate period to designate as ``Public Schools Week'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate designates the week of February 27 through March 3, 2023, as ``Public Schools Week''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-15-pt1-PgS805-3 | null | 6,024 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | Mr. TESTER (for himself and Ms. Collins) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 112 Whereas public education is a significant institution in a 21st-century democracy; Whereas public schools in the United States educate students about the values and beliefs that hold the individuals of the United States together as a nation; Whereas public schools prepare young individuals of the United States to contribute to the society, economy, and citizenry of the country; Whereas 90 percent of children in the United States attend public schools; Whereas Federal, State, and local lawmakers should-- (1) prioritize support for strengthening the public schools of the United States; (2) empower superintendents, principals, and other school leaders to implement, manage, and lead school districts and schools in partnership with educators, parents, and other local education stakeholders; and (3) support services and programs that are critical to helping students engage in learning, including counseling, extracurricular activities, and mental health support; Whereas public schools should foster inclusive, safe, and high-quality environments in which children can learn to think critically, problem solve, and build relationships; Whereas public schools should provide environments in which all students have the opportunity to succeed beginning in their earliest years, regardless of who a student is or where a student lives; Whereas Congress should support-- (1) efforts to advance equal opportunity and excellence in public education; (2) efforts to implement evidence-based practices in public education; and (3) continuous improvements to public education; Whereas every child should-- (1) receive an education that helps the child reach the full potential of the child; and (2) attend a school that offers a high-quality educational experience; Whereas Federal funding, in addition to State and local funds, supports the access of students to inviting classrooms, well-prepared educators, and services to support healthy students, including nutrition and afterschool programs; Whereas teachers, paraprofessionals, and principals should provide students with a well-rounded education and strive to create joy in learning; Whereas superintendents, principals, other school leaders, teachers, paraprofessionals, and parents make public schools vital components of communities and are working hard to improve educational outcomes for children across the country; and Whereas the week of February 27 through March 3, 2023, is an appropriate period to designate as ``Public Schools Week'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate designates the week of February 27 through March 3, 2023, as ``Public Schools Week''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-15-pt1-PgS805-3 | null | 6,025 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I rise this evening with a simple and sober message: The United States has entered a very dangerous period, a dangerous national security moment the likes of which we have not seen since the height of the Cold War. Although alarming, the moment is clarifying. The job of the Department of Defense and Congress is and always has been to provide for the common defense, as provided in the Constitution. We must stay focused on American military might and so prevent our adversaries from changing the course of our future. An American-led 21st century is a peaceful and prosperous century. That is not what a century led by the Chinese Communist Party would look like. It is no surprise the pariah states of Russia, Iran, and North Korea are growing closer to Beijing and to each other. A free world is actually something that threatens them. As the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, it is my hope that we will decide not just to compete in this dangerous era but that we win. To that end, I have identified three priorities: deterring conflicts, winning technological competitions, and investing in our military's personnel. First, deterring conflicts. In American history, one foreign and defense policy has succeeded above all others: a national policy of preparedness. President Washington said: To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace. Theodore Roosevelt called it ``wielding a big stick.'' President Reagan called it ``peace through strength.'' Indeed, we ought to listen to those great captains of American purpose. We should rearm and strengthen the United States so no adversary dreams of acting against our interests. With that in mind, I want to start with Taiwan and Ukraine. Without a doubt, there is no greater challenge than deterring Xi Jingping from taking Taiwan. Failing to defend Taiwan would plunge the globe into an economic depression and end our hopes for an American-led century. To ensure that never happens, Congress should pursue four priorities with Taiwan this year. First, we should pressure the Biden administration to exercise the $1 billion of drawdown authority we provided them in the Taiwan Enhanced Resilience Act last year. Second, we should match Taipei's growing investment in critical capabilities. I am disappointed that the Biden administration has once again failed to request foreign military financing money for Taiwan. Congress will have to act. Third, we should fix the foreign military sales backlog and pursue real reforms to the process. Right now, it takes us too long to get crucial weapons to our allies. For example, unless something changes, Taiwan will wait nearly a decade to get a recent order of Harpoons. Fourth, we should expand our work with allies and partners to help Taiwan defend itself with military and nonmilitary tools of power. Yet, when it comes to deterring conflicts in the Western Pacific, helping the Taiwanese defend themselves is only part of the puzzle. The U.S. military itself must also be ready. First, Congress and the Department of Defense should act this year to accelerate the most important short-term capabilities for our forces in a Western Pacific scenario. As in prior years, we will focus on a concise list of near-term joint capabilities, such as advanced naval mines, munitions, nonkinetic cyber and electronic warfare techniques, space capabilities, and a range of battle management software technologies related to the Joint All-Domain Command and Control effort. Second, we should accelerate the innovative work in the Army and Marine Corps to reestablish their presence in the first island chain and expand our alliance partnership networks. Specifically, I look forward to continuing the committee's focus on the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. This initiative seeks to enhance our basing and logistics infrastructure west of the international dateline. Third, we should focus on our munitions industrial base this year. Congress and the Department of Defense will expand the efforts in the Reed-Inhofe amendment, which has actually cut bureaucratic redtape and has pushed the Pentagon to sign multiyear contracts for 17 different munitions. We must promptly provide the industrial base with resources to expand production of key munitions, such as the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile and Standard Missile-6. Fourth, we must tackle structural supply chain and workforce issues that hamper our munitions production. These activities are key to expanding our magazine depth, and they will significantly add to deterring China. Even as we seek deterrence in the Western Pacific, we note that deterrence did not work in Ukraine. Our goal now should be to maximize U.S. interests through Ukrainian victory and deter further Russian aggression, including against our NATO and our non-NATO allies. I will continue to focus on providing the Ukrainians with everything they need to achieve battlefield gains faster and hasten Ukraine's victory. As General Kellogg testified to our committee 2 weeks ago, Beijing is watching our actions in Ukraine. They are weighing whether to join the fray in this conflict. That brings me to my second priority: investing in our competitiveness. While our fundamentals remain strong here in America, the Chinese are outcompeting us in multiple arenas. The Chinese are running the so-called 100-year marathon. To them, victory in that race means toppling American global leadership. We need to make the long-term investments to compete in the coming decades in this marathon. The Chinese Communist Party is working overtime to achieve what they call ``the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation'' by 2049. Their goal is to be the global center of economic, political, and military power. China has pulled off the fastest military buildup in history, and they are still building. Beijing has achieved real growth in its defense budget every year for two straight decades--every year for two straight decades. It is quite likely they already spend more than we do, particularly if we count only our China-focused military spending. These investments are paying off for Xi Jingping. Quite honestly, in many areas of warfare, China's military already exhibits greater quantity and sophistication than our own. I am particularly concerned about the rapid advancement of the Chinese navy compared to ours. The Secretary of the Navy recently shared a troubling fact: In one shipyard alone, the Chinese now boast more productive capacity than in every American shipyard combined. I had the privilege of leading Congress to pass the SHIPS Act, which requires the Navy, in statute, to achieve a 355-ship fleet as soon as practicable. Unfortunately, the Biden administration has shirked its responsibility to enforce this statute and to maintain American naval superiority. The administration has repeatedly sent Congress requests to actually shrink the fleet. This is unacceptable. It should be unacceptable on both sides of the aisle. Thankfully, we took important steps in last year's National Defense Authorization Act to prevent the Navy from retiring 12 ships. We now need to make sure the Navy's battle force inventory grows each year instead of shrinking. I will push to make sure we build three destroyers per year, maximize the production of amphibious ships, and restore a healthy submarine industrial base. For centuries, naval power has been the cornerstone of American defense policy. When we defeated the Axis Powers in World War II, our victory took place just as much in the steam and sweat of our shipyards as it did on the shores of Normandy or Iwo Jima. It validated George Washington's words from a century and a half earlier when he said, ``Without a decisive naval force, we can do nothing definitive.'' So let's do the most definitive thing we can: make a monumental investment in American command of the seas. It is also critical that we revitalize our capabilities in the air and in space. In many ways, our challenges in aircraft production mirror those of our shipbuilders: Years of anemic budgets have created a brittle industrial base. We need to expand our orders of tactical fighter aircraft above 72 per year to get our combat air forces healthy. We need similar actions in tankers and other aircraft. We cannot continue to buy fewer aircraft every year while our older aircraft costs more to maintain. This is a death spiral. The same problems hold for our nuclear weapons production infrastructure, which my predecessor, Senator Inhofe--along with Senators Fischer, King, and others--has worked for years to rectify. Our defense industrial base should focus less on efficiency and more on effectiveness. Again, it is helpful to look back to World War II to understand what I mean. In the beginning of 1942, the Nazi war machine controlled all of Western Europe. Japan's empire spanned from the borders of India to our smoldering fleet in Pearl Harbor. The forces of liberty were not on the march but on the defense. It took what one author called ``freedom's forge,'' or American industrial capacity, to defeat evil. We need to unleash our forge of freedom again--complete with all the 21st-century technologies that make it superior. Pentagon bureaucracy cannot keep getting in the way of this goal. To that effect, we must also focus on improving the Department of Defense's ability to develop, integrate, and purchase innovative technology at scale. It is time for a culture shift at the Pentagon and here in Congress, one that prioritizes speed and effectiveness over compliance and efficiency. We may have to assume a bit more risk together, but we can and must accelerate innovation--accelerate innovation--while also improving oversight if we have the right tools. We will win by deterring conflict, by winning the tech race, and thirdly and finally, by investing in our military personnel. We have long had cutting-edge technology, but our secret weapon has always been our people. As a veteran myself, I know how important it is to attract the best personnel to serve our country in uniform. Unfortunately, we find ourselves in the worst military recruiting shortfall in 50 years. The injection of a hyperpolitical culture into our fighting forces I think takes a sledgehammer to military readiness and recruiting. I think it is part of the problem with our recruiting. I will partner with any Member of Congress to expand the population of Americans eligible for military service. I will also promote solutions in this Congress, including increased support for Junior ROTC and ROTC programs and expanded incentives for servicemembers. As we recruit, we must never lose sight of our current troops. We will continue to care for servicemembers and their families. All this will take hard work, new ways of thinking, and new partnerships between Congress and the executive branch. It will also require additional funding. We must achieve continued real growth in the defense budget. Significant real growth is absolutely required to strengthen deterrence against the Chinese Communist Party to an acceptable risk. Any additional investments in our national defense should have the best return possible, and we should innovate in new ways that will result in real savings to the taxpayers over the long run. In conclusion, the challenges we face are significant. Our adversaries are testing us every day, and we cannot afford to make mistakes in our defense policy or to try to do defense policy on the cheap. Legendary columnist the late Charles Krauthammer reminded us often that ``decline is a choice.'' But I am confident we can choose to pass this generational test of American resolve if we work together in the spirit that has so long defined the work of this Congress and the Armed Services Committee. To my colleagues on the committee and across this Chamber, I say: Let's get to work. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WICKER | Senate | CREC-2023-03-15-pt1-PgS807-4 | null | 6,026 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Nomination of Jessica G. L. Clarke Madam President, on the Clarke nomination today, the Senate will confirm a highly qualified judicial nominee from New York, whom I was very proud to recommend, Jessica Clarke, to serve as a U.S. district judge for the Southern District of New York. Ms. Clarke had all the opportunities in the world to enter private practice in New York, but instead she chose the path of public service. She has worked in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division and the New York attorney general's Civil Rights Bureau. She is a great civil rights lawyer, and I am certain she will make an excellent member of the Federal bench. It would have been difficult to imagine someone like Ms. Clarke being nominated to the Federal bench a generation ago, but because of her talent and her dedication to the rule of law, she is rightfully taking her place on the bench today. Our courts will be better for it. I look forward to supporting her confirmation and urge my colleagues to vote in her favor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-16-pt1-PgS810 | null | 6,027 |
formal | Detroit | null | racist | Lobbyists Mr. President, we spent the past month responding to two crises in the lives of Ohioans: one in East Palestine, a community on the Pennsylvania border, a community that rail traffic runs through almost hourly--daily, certainly--and one to our banking system. I want to explore both, but what happened in East Palestine, in Ohio, and what happened in the far west coast of our country, in the Silicon Valley in California, have one thing in common: They both follow the Wall Street business model--obsessed with short-term profits at the expense of everything and everyone else. They were aided and abetted by corporate lobbyists and the politicians who do their bidding, weakening rules meant to protect the people we serve. (Mr. BOOKER assumed the Chair.) Mr. President, a student of history is sitting in the Presiding Officer's chair, and we both know that for much of the history of this country for the last 150 years, two of the most powerful lobbyists, two of the strongest, most aggressive, most involved companies--the railroads and the banks--have far too often had their way. They have had their way with Congress. They have had their way with regulators. And always--always--workers in New Jersey and workers in Ohio pay the price. These two industries--railroads and banks--aided and abetted by corporate lobbyists who do their bidding, always, as I said, weaken rules meant to protect the people, the voters whom we were elected to serve, and now working people in Ohio and around the country pay the price. The Nation now knows East Palestine, a tight-knit community in Columbiana County, OH, about 5,000 people, in a county of about 100,000 people. You can almost, from East Palestine, see the Pennsylvania-Ohio border. So Senator Casey has been very involved with this, too, with me, as has Senator Vance, the freshman Republican Member from Ohio. East Palestine is in Columbiana County. A few decades ago but in my lifetime, Columbiana County manufactured more than 80 percent of the cookware, of the ceramics in this country--plates and glasses and all those kinds of things. Eighty percent was made in that county, that one little county in Ohio. When I was there--I have been there a number of times; I am going back next Tuesday--in Columbiana County, I talked to the sheriff my last visitthere. He said the last pottery closed just 2 or 3 years ago. So they once made 80 percent of all the cookware. Now, they essentially make zero. We have seen in my State, time after time, in my hometown of Mansfield, OH--when I was in junior high at Johnny Appleseed Junior High, and that was really its name--I went to school with the sons and daughters of electrical workers at Westinghouse, autoworkers at General Motors, steelworkers at Empire Detroit, machinists at Tappan stove, the sons and daughters of electricians and carpenters and sheet metal workers and plumbers and pipefitters and laborers and operating engineers. Those jobs essentially disappeared because this Congress and, Mr. President, down the hall in the House of Representatives--this Senate and this House of Representatives, aided and abetted by Presidents from George Bush, Sr., through Clinton, through George Bush, Jr., through Obama, through Trump--every one of those Presidents sold us out, sold our manufacturing workers out, because corporations lobbied Congress for trade agreements that made it easier for them to shut down production in Mansfield, OH, and Toledo, OH, and Lima, OH, and Defiance, OH, and Youngstown and East Palestine and move overseas so they could get cheap labor. That is what happened. At the same time our corporate executives sold us out, our country built up China--China manufacturing, China industry--so that now China's military is a threat to us, all because of corporate greed and all because of this Wall Street business model. So back to East Palestine. It is the kind of place that is too often forgotten or exploited or both by corporate America. Now, these Ohioans, because of this train running off the tracks because the $10-million-a-year CEO of Norfolk Southern decided over the last 10 years--their management--they cut 38 percent--more than a third of their workforce they laid off. When you lay off a third of your workforce and you are a railroad, what do you think happens? Of course they compromised on safety. Of course they didn't have enough workers inspecting track. Of course they weren't able to really detect ahead of time what happens with those wheel bearings. Believe it or not--and I almost can't believe this, but I have heard it enough times, I know it is true--the railroads want to be able, under the law, to have one operator on their trains. Now, these railroads are 200 cars, often. We had another rail derailment in Springfield, OH, since East Palestine--more than 200 cars. They want to have only one operator. So you are going to have one engineer, one human being run a train with 200 cars that is 2 or 2-1/5 or 3 miles long. That is all driven by corporate greed. It is driven by ``Let's lay off workers so we can report to Wall Street that our stock price went up, and then, as the CEO, when I do stock buybacks, I get more money.'' Here is what happened. We know that when the train ran off the track in East Palestine, it spewed these chemicals into the air. We know about this. It makes citizens wonder: Is the water safe to drink? Is the air safe to breathe? Will the kids get sick? What happens to the value of my home? These are generally modest, older homes in a town that has been hit hard--all because of a train derailment caused by a corporate culture of cutting corners. Let me tell you a story, Mr. President. When I was in East Palestine, not last time but the time before--as I said, I am going again early next week. When I was last there, a woman in town who owns a small cattle farm 4 miles from town--she sells half a beef of cattle, half a beef every--every year or two, a number of local clients and a number of local friends buy her beef. She said to me: You know, since this derailment, I am starting to get calls from my friends saying, ``Is it safe to eat this beef? Is it safe to eat this now?'' She says: I don't know what to tell them. Authorities don't know what to tell them, but you can bet those buyers are going to go somewhere else to buy this beef. They are not going to take the chance. So it is one thing after another. Again, Norfolk Southern chose to invest its massive profits in making its executives and shareholders wealthier. The company, as I said, followed the Wall Street business model and boosted its stock price by eliminating its workforce and cutting corners on safety. So Senator Vance and I--a Republican from Ohio and I, a Democrat from Ohio--have come together to introduce our Railway Safety Act to make trains safer as they go through communities like East Palestine. We are working with Senator Cantwell, the chair of the Commerce Committee, to move this legislation forward quickly. We know the train companies, the railroads, are already swooping in to lobby our colleagues to say: Oh, this is Big Government. You don't want these rules. You don't want these regulations. They want to have one engineer per train. They don't want to tell the State of Ohio when they bring hazardous material in. They don't want to pay for training hazmat workers, firefighters. In East Palestine, 1 fire chief is paid; 22 firefighters, 23 firefighters are volunteers. They don't have the training and they don't have the equipment to fight these kinds of hazardous material fires. So the railroads continue to fight against the rules. They have, unfortunately, too many people in this body who say: I am against government regulations. I don't trust government. Well, you shouldn't trust the railroads, for sure. So, Mr. President, that is what has happened in East Palestine, OH, when a company has that kind of influence over workers, over communities, over Congress, and over the regulators in Washington. It is the same story with Silicon Valley Bank. Let's scroll back a little. For as long as we have had big banks, they have had too much power in town. That is how we got the financial crisis of 2008 that wiped out worker savings and permanently set back an entire generation of young Americans. But, of course, Wall Street didn't change its ways from 15 years ago. Wall Street banks spent the ensuing years lobbying to roll back the safeguards Congress passed in the wake of the banking crisis of 15 years ago. The now-defunct Silicon Valley Bank spent hundreds of thousands of dollars pushing for exemptions for banks like theirs. In fact, the CEO--I believe his name is Greg Becker--of Silicon Valley Bank was here lobbying for weaker rules, saying: My bank is safe. I don't need any rules or regulations. Well, it kind of didn't work that way. He talked about the ``low-risk profile of our activities and business model''--the ``low-risk profile of our activities and business model.'' ``Low-risk profile'' is what he said. We know, actually, it had nothing to do with that. We know what he wanted. He wanted to maximize profit, risk be damned. And look what happened: The paychecks of thousands of Ohioans and people from New Jersey and California and all were at stake last weekend because of the Silicon Valley executives, because of their greed, because of their arrogance, and because of their incompetence. When we let executives in big corporations run the economy, workers and their families always, always pay the price. Whether it is the greed of Silicon Valley executives, whether it is the greed of Norfolk Southern, whether it is the greed of the big drug companies or the greed of Big Oil or the incompetence of Norfolk Southern or the Silicon Valley or Big Pharma or Big Oil--all of that. There is a pretty simple question at stake in everything we do in these jobs. It is, whose side are you on? Do you stand with corporate lobbyists, or do you stand with communities like East Palestine? Do you stand with the Silicon Valley venture capitalists, or do you stand with small businesses? Do you stand with Wall Street, or do you stand with workers? It is the same fight over and over. We know we need to respond to this latest in a long line of financial industry failures. We know we need to respond to this long line of abuses by the railroads in terms of safety. I hope my colleagues will put partisanship aside, as Senator Vance and I are doing on rail safety, to stand with the people whom we serve. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-16-pt1-PgS820 | null | 6,028 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following bills were read the first time: H.R. 502. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs repays members of the Armed Forces for certain contributions made by such members towards Post-9 11 Educational Assistance, and for other purposes. H.R. 815. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to make certain improvements relating to the eligibility of veterans to receive reimbursement for emergency treatment furnished through the Veterans Community Care program, and for other purposes. S. 870. A bill to amend the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 to authorize appropriations for the United States Fire Administration and firefighter assistance grant programs. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-16-pt1-PgS824-3 | null | 6,029 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 113, a bill to require the Federal Trade Commission to study the role of intermediaries in the pharmaceutical supply chain and provide Congress with appropriate policy recommendations, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-16-pt1-PgS826-2 | null | 6,030 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Grassley): S. 837. A bill to enhance civil penalties under the Federal securities laws, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2023-03-16-pt1-PgS827-3 | null | 6,031 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about a court decision that is likely to come down anytime now that could be an attack on abortion rights and access to healthcare across the country. This is an important issue affecting the removal of access to mifepristone, a drug that can lead to a termination of a pregnancy but in the comfort of someone's home. The latest is an example of a radical court in Texas trying to further restrict access to safe and legal medication for abortion, which has been safely used by millions of women over the past 22 years. Since Roe v. Wade was overturned last summer, abortion patients and providers across the country have faced a growing challenge, misinformation, threats, and inability to get reproductive care--even in States like mine where abortion is still legal. Last week, I and Senator Murray met with abortion providers in Seattle who told me about the growing fear and confusion among patients since Roe has been overturned. The medical director at a clinic told me, in the past 9 months, it has become routine for patients to ask whether it is OK to even talk about abortions in the exam room. Patients have been more hesitant to say where they live in fear of legal retaliation. Mind you, this is in a State where the people in the State voted to have abortion rights protected in a vote in 1991. This assault on women's reproductive health is already having an impact on women, even keeping them from talking about their options with their healthcare providers. Anti-abortion extremists are now turning their attention to Medicaid abortion. Nearly a quarter of a century ago, the FDA approved mifepristone, a drug that is safer, in some people's minds, it says, than Tylenol. Today, more than half of all abortions and procedures in the United States, including 55 percent of those in the State of Washington, are performed through this medication. This drug is not only safe and legal to use, but it also makes abortion more accessible, but we know that this access could be threatened through areas like telehealth, where a patient doesn't have to travel long distances to see a provider. The access is important for Planned Parenthood clinics. The medical director of Planned Parenthood told me a story of a patient who traveled thousands of miles from her home State to Washington to get abortion care. She couldn't afford a hotel room, so she stayed with a friend, and the patient had to take off time from work to make this trip. After all this effort, the woman had a miscarriage while waiting in the waiting room. People shouldn't have to travel all the way across the country just for the kind of healthcare they deserve. This is why the court case on Medicaid abortion is so dangerous. Should one judge in Texas decide to overturn the FDA's approval of this safe drug from more than two decades ago, it would effectively ban the drug on a nationwide basis. The kinds of things that are already happening to intimidate or not provide this in the pharmacies in our State are alarming. This ruling would mean that every State, including those like mine that have already expressed their opinion with the codification of Roe v. Wade, could have some of its healthcare denied. The ruling would mean that in Washington State, where abortion has expressly been under our State law for more than 30 years, a person who needs or elects to terminate their pregnancy could no longer safely do it at their home if they can't get access to this drug. Indeed, we will continue to fight for these issues. We want women in America to have access. This judge's decision in Texas could cost people in our State. It could cost them time to travel, cost them time of healthcare, and certainly we are seeing an uptick in the number of people coming to Washington to get access to care. We are also seeing people upping the ante in places like Spokane, where they are trying to publicly humiliate people coming to clinics by protesting. This is not a way to run healthcare. And we can't have a judge in Texas deciding what FDA and scientists nearly a quarter of a century ago said was a safe procedure. We know that this is depriving women even in States where their rights are guaranteed. It is impacting their access to safe and legal abortions. There is a reason why we have an FDA and the science, and we need to continue to listen to them. Let's be clear. We are not going to let a decision like this go unchallenged. People will not stop getting pregnant. And if this one judge decides to substitute his opinion for the FDA's, women will continue to look for this drug, and they will look for safe options. I hope we can continue to educate people on how this is affecting people in States that have already voted by law to protect a woman's right to choose. This is eroding our rights, it is impacting our providers, and it is basically telling young women that we are not sure if you are going to be able to get access to this drug. I hope the courts will not go down this errant path, and I hope that we here will get our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to vote with us to clarify and protect a woman's right to choose at the Federal level. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. CANTWELL | Senate | CREC-2023-03-16-pt1-PgS836-2 | null | 6,032 |
formal | extremists | null | Islamophobic | Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about a court decision that is likely to come down anytime now that could be an attack on abortion rights and access to healthcare across the country. This is an important issue affecting the removal of access to mifepristone, a drug that can lead to a termination of a pregnancy but in the comfort of someone's home. The latest is an example of a radical court in Texas trying to further restrict access to safe and legal medication for abortion, which has been safely used by millions of women over the past 22 years. Since Roe v. Wade was overturned last summer, abortion patients and providers across the country have faced a growing challenge, misinformation, threats, and inability to get reproductive care--even in States like mine where abortion is still legal. Last week, I and Senator Murray met with abortion providers in Seattle who told me about the growing fear and confusion among patients since Roe has been overturned. The medical director at a clinic told me, in the past 9 months, it has become routine for patients to ask whether it is OK to even talk about abortions in the exam room. Patients have been more hesitant to say where they live in fear of legal retaliation. Mind you, this is in a State where the people in the State voted to have abortion rights protected in a vote in 1991. This assault on women's reproductive health is already having an impact on women, even keeping them from talking about their options with their healthcare providers. Anti-abortion extremists are now turning their attention to Medicaid abortion. Nearly a quarter of a century ago, the FDA approved mifepristone, a drug that is safer, in some people's minds, it says, than Tylenol. Today, more than half of all abortions and procedures in the United States, including 55 percent of those in the State of Washington, are performed through this medication. This drug is not only safe and legal to use, but it also makes abortion more accessible, but we know that this access could be threatened through areas like telehealth, where a patient doesn't have to travel long distances to see a provider. The access is important for Planned Parenthood clinics. The medical director of Planned Parenthood told me a story of a patient who traveled thousands of miles from her home State to Washington to get abortion care. She couldn't afford a hotel room, so she stayed with a friend, and the patient had to take off time from work to make this trip. After all this effort, the woman had a miscarriage while waiting in the waiting room. People shouldn't have to travel all the way across the country just for the kind of healthcare they deserve. This is why the court case on Medicaid abortion is so dangerous. Should one judge in Texas decide to overturn the FDA's approval of this safe drug from more than two decades ago, it would effectively ban the drug on a nationwide basis. The kinds of things that are already happening to intimidate or not provide this in the pharmacies in our State are alarming. This ruling would mean that every State, including those like mine that have already expressed their opinion with the codification of Roe v. Wade, could have some of its healthcare denied. The ruling would mean that in Washington State, where abortion has expressly been under our State law for more than 30 years, a person who needs or elects to terminate their pregnancy could no longer safely do it at their home if they can't get access to this drug. Indeed, we will continue to fight for these issues. We want women in America to have access. This judge's decision in Texas could cost people in our State. It could cost them time to travel, cost them time of healthcare, and certainly we are seeing an uptick in the number of people coming to Washington to get access to care. We are also seeing people upping the ante in places like Spokane, where they are trying to publicly humiliate people coming to clinics by protesting. This is not a way to run healthcare. And we can't have a judge in Texas deciding what FDA and scientists nearly a quarter of a century ago said was a safe procedure. We know that this is depriving women even in States where their rights are guaranteed. It is impacting their access to safe and legal abortions. There is a reason why we have an FDA and the science, and we need to continue to listen to them. Let's be clear. We are not going to let a decision like this go unchallenged. People will not stop getting pregnant. And if this one judge decides to substitute his opinion for the FDA's, women will continue to look for this drug, and they will look for safe options. I hope we can continue to educate people on how this is affecting people in States that have already voted by law to protect a woman's right to choose. This is eroding our rights, it is impacting our providers, and it is basically telling young women that we are not sure if you are going to be able to get access to this drug. I hope the courts will not go down this errant path, and I hope that we here will get our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to vote with us to clarify and protect a woman's right to choose at the Federal level. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. CANTWELL | Senate | CREC-2023-03-16-pt1-PgS836-2 | null | 6,033 |
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-2023-03-17-pt1-PgH1294 | null | 6,034 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. CLYDE: H.J. Res. 44. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution states: The single subject of this legislation is: To repeal the Biden Administration's pistol brace rule. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-03-17-pt1-PgH1296-19 | null | 6,035 |
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-2023-03-21-pt1-PgH1301 | null | 6,036 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on CHIPS, today, the administration released a number of proposed guardrails that will ensure the Chinese Communist Party does not benefit from our efforts to increase chip production here at home. We first put these guardrails into the CHIPS and Science bill, which we enacted into law last summer--something we are very proud of and that I am very proud of. We put them in because we didn't want to see companies getting help to expand operations in America and then using other dollars to expand operations in countries like China. I am glad the administration is implementing this law with good, strong guidelines--with good, strong regulations. Specifically, the Department of Commerce and the Treasury have proposed new restrictions, which the Senate approved through the CHIPS and Science Act, on the amount companies receiving CHIPS money can invest in projects located within countries of concern. That includes Russia and China. Abusing CHIPS funding to expand projects in China-based markets would be self-defeating, and it would endanger our national security. This is what we passed into law in the CHIPS bill, and this proposed rule will implement it in a strong way. If we are serious about investing in domestic chip production, the last thing we should be doing is allowing companies to take CHIPS dollars and use them to build facilities in China that benefit the CCP. I applaud the administration. I applaud our great Secretary of Commerce for this proposed rule, which I called on them to fast-track weeks ago, and I am glad they are doing it. I am also glad this week that the administration is rolling out proposed guidance for implementing the CHIPS investment tax credit--the ITC. I fought relentlessly to get this tax credit into CHIPS and Science. We knew, without it, our new factories here in America that are going to make advanced computer chips would not grow as quickly and as well. I want to thank Senators Wyden, Brown, Casey, Tester, Kelly, Warner, Cantwell, and many others for joining me in this effort. As I have said many times, President Xi and the Chinese Communist Party are on an all-out campaign to replace the United States as the global force in the 21st century. Look no further than the headlines today. President Xi is being wined and dined by Vladimir Putin, leaving no doubt that the CCP is rooting for Putin to prevail in Ukraine. But it is not just on military matters that China wants to dominate. For decades, the CCP has rapaciously stolen American, European, and Japanese technologies and intellectual property. The CHIPS and Science Act was designed to halt this bleeding and bring semiconductor jobs back to our shores. But, if that is going to happen, we can't allow taxpayer dollars to expand projects in China to begin with. So I applaud the administration for introducing this proposed rule today. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-03-21-pt1-PgS840-2 | null | 6,037 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in honoring the life of Judy Heumann, one of the most important disability and civil rights leaders of our time. While Judy spent most of her childhood and early adult life in New York, she is a native Pennsylvanian, born in Philadelphia in 1947. She was an advocate for disability equality and access to education from an early age. When her mother attempted to enroll her in public kindergarten, the school principal denied her admission because Judy's wheelchair was determined to be ``a fire hazard.'' That determination wasn't by any official means; it was only in the opinion of a principal who had the power to bar her from receiving an education. It took over 4 years for Judy's parents to find a school where she could enroll, starting regular attendance at school at the age of 9. At the start of her adult life, Judy experienced similar discrimination when the New York City schools denied her a job as a teacher, despite having passed all requirements but one, the physical examination. Judy sued the New York City Public Schools and won her case and was hired as the first teacher with a disability in the New York City schools. That was 1970. One year later, partly inspired by the successful advocacy of Judy, Pennsylvania parents of children with intellectual disabilities filed suit to secure enrollment of their children in Pennsylvania public schools. That successful case, known as PARC v. Pennsylvania, was the foundation for the 1975 Education of All Handicapped Children Act, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. After many years of advocacy, that included the development and passage of IDEA and the Americans with Disabilities Act, Judy was appointed by President Clinton to be the Assistant Secretary of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services in the Department of Education, a position she held from 1993 to 2001. With that appointment, Judy had come full circle, from being barred from attending public school as a kindergartener, to being responsible for ensuring public schools across the country were accessible to and educating all children with disabilities. Successfully advocating for such groundbreaking change in education of children with disabilities would have been enough for one life, but Judy did much more than advocate to secure access to education for children with disabilities. Her work included implementation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which requires all governments and public entities that receive Federal funding to ensure their services and settings are accessible to people with disabilities. She was a key partner with Democrats and Republicans in the writing and implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 and the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments in 2008. Judy's work was not limited to the United States. In 1983, Judy, along with Ed Roberts, one of the fathers of the disability rights movement, established the World Institute on Disability. She felt that the disability rights achieved in America needed to be spread throughout the world. Judy became the first Advisor on Disability and Development at the World Bank in 2002. And in 2010, President Obama appointed her to the position of Special Advisor on International Disability Rights at the State Department, a role she filled until 2017. Along the way, Judy rarely forgot that she was working for individual people with disabilities. When visiting countries, she made it a point to seek out young people with disabilities and encourage them to speak out and to become leaders in their own towns, districts, States, and countries. She knew the power of policy to change lives and the importance of individuals to implement that change. Judy Heumann changed the world in big and small ways for people with disabilities and all of us. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CASEY | Senate | CREC-2023-03-21-pt1-PgS857 | null | 6,038 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in honoring the life of Judy Heumann, one of the most important disability and civil rights leaders of our time. While Judy spent most of her childhood and early adult life in New York, she is a native Pennsylvanian, born in Philadelphia in 1947. She was an advocate for disability equality and access to education from an early age. When her mother attempted to enroll her in public kindergarten, the school principal denied her admission because Judy's wheelchair was determined to be ``a fire hazard.'' That determination wasn't by any official means; it was only in the opinion of a principal who had the power to bar her from receiving an education. It took over 4 years for Judy's parents to find a school where she could enroll, starting regular attendance at school at the age of 9. At the start of her adult life, Judy experienced similar discrimination when the New York City schools denied her a job as a teacher, despite having passed all requirements but one, the physical examination. Judy sued the New York City Public Schools and won her case and was hired as the first teacher with a disability in the New York City schools. That was 1970. One year later, partly inspired by the successful advocacy of Judy, Pennsylvania parents of children with intellectual disabilities filed suit to secure enrollment of their children in Pennsylvania public schools. That successful case, known as PARC v. Pennsylvania, was the foundation for the 1975 Education of All Handicapped Children Act, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. After many years of advocacy, that included the development and passage of IDEA and the Americans with Disabilities Act, Judy was appointed by President Clinton to be the Assistant Secretary of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services in the Department of Education, a position she held from 1993 to 2001. With that appointment, Judy had come full circle, from being barred from attending public school as a kindergartener, to being responsible for ensuring public schools across the country were accessible to and educating all children with disabilities. Successfully advocating for such groundbreaking change in education of children with disabilities would have been enough for one life, but Judy did much more than advocate to secure access to education for children with disabilities. Her work included implementation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which requires all governments and public entities that receive Federal funding to ensure their services and settings are accessible to people with disabilities. She was a key partner with Democrats and Republicans in the writing and implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 and the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments in 2008. Judy's work was not limited to the United States. In 1983, Judy, along with Ed Roberts, one of the fathers of the disability rights movement, established the World Institute on Disability. She felt that the disability rights achieved in America needed to be spread throughout the world. Judy became the first Advisor on Disability and Development at the World Bank in 2002. And in 2010, President Obama appointed her to the position of Special Advisor on International Disability Rights at the State Department, a role she filled until 2017. Along the way, Judy rarely forgot that she was working for individual people with disabilities. When visiting countries, she made it a point to seek out young people with disabilities and encourage them to speak out and to become leaders in their own towns, districts, States, and countries. She knew the power of policy to change lives and the importance of individuals to implement that change. Judy Heumann changed the world in big and small ways for people with disabilities and all of us. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CASEY | Senate | CREC-2023-03-21-pt1-PgS857 | null | 6,039 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following bills were read the second time, and placed on the calendar: S. 870. A bill to amend the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 to authorize appropriations for the United States Fire Administration and firefighter assistance grant programs. H.R. 502. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs repays members of the Armed Forces for certain contributions made by such members towards Post-9 11 Educational Assistance, and for other purposes. H.R. 815. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to make certain improvements relating to the eligibility of veterans to receive reimbursement for emergency treatment furnished through the Veterans Community Care program, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-21-pt1-PgS858-3 | null | 6,040 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | At the request of Mrs. Hyde-Smith, the name of the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) was added as a cosponsor of S. 95, a bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the approval of new abortion drugs, to prohibit investigational use exemptions for abortion drugs, and to impose additional regulatory requirements with respect to previously approved abortion drugs, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-21-pt1-PgS860-2 | null | 6,041 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Daines, Mr. Lankford, and Mr. Tillis): S. 898. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit audits based on Merchant Category Codes; to the Committee on Finance. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2023-03-21-pt1-PgS861-2 | null | 6,042 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Daines, Mr. Lankford, and Mr. Tillis): S. 898. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit audits based on Merchant Category Codes; to the Committee on Finance. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2023-03-21-pt1-PgS861 | null | 6,043 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | SA 4. Mr. RUBIO submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 316, to repeal the authorizations for use of military force against Iraq; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 2, line 10, insert ``30 days after the President certifies to Congress that Iran has stopped providing financial, technical, and material support to terrorist organizations and other violent groups in Iraq and Syria'' after ``hereby repealed''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-21-pt1-PgS863 | null | 6,044 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Affordable Care Act, passed some 13 years ago, and in particular to talk about the Medicaid part of that, taking the Medicaid Program and allowing States to sign up for an expansion of Medicaid. But I thought the best place to start, as any healthcare discussion should start, is to talk about just one family. This happens to be a Pennsylvania family. I will start with two sisters. I will start with the older sister. Her name is Haley. Haley wrote me a letter just about 2\1/2\ years ago now, talking about her little sister. Here is what Haley wrote to me. She talked about where her family lives in Pennsylvania, and then she said--her sister's name is Sienna--she said: My sister is my best friend. She has Down syndrome so sometimes things are harder for her. It took her a long time to walk and she is still learning to talk. Her therapists help her and sometimes I help her too. Then she goes on to talk about how she, Haley, introduces her sister Sienna to her classmates. She said that she shares her sister with her friends, and I am quoting directly what Haley says: Mommy and me read a story at my school to explain Sienna's muscles work different than ours. Our muscles are like rubber bands but hers are more like play-doh. Now my friends understand why things are harder for her and they all love her. They think she is the cutest and so do I. So said an older sister about her younger sister. Of course, her mom wrote a much longer letter to me about what that family is facing every day. I won't go through all of it tonight, but when this family received that diagnosis of Down syndrome, Sienna's mom said: Sienna's diagnosis came as a surprise to us. After enduring four miscarriages, she was our miracle baby. Our miracle baby surprised us on the day of her birth with her diagnosis and a heart condition. We were completely unprepared to raise a child with a disability. After I delivered her, a kind nurse explained to me how lucky we were to have Sienna here in Pennsylvania after the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Then her mom goes on to describe all the benefits that she received because of the Affordable Care Act and because of her residence in Pennsylvania. That is what we are talking about here when we talk about healthcare. This isn't a budget question only. This isn't just a policy discussion. This is about real people's lives. And the further away you get from real people's lives, the easier it is to make the calculation, as some have made around here, some Members of Congress whose healthcare is made available to them because of the Federal Government--that is why they have healthcare, because of the Federal Government. Whether they are in the exchange or they have it some other way, most Members of the U.S. Senate and the House have that healthcare because of the Federal Government. So those with healthcare provided by the Federal Government seek relentlessly--too many seek relentlessly to use Federal power to cut people off of healthcare. This is about real people's lives, not something abstract, not some remote discussion about policy and about budgets and deficits and appropriations. This is about real people's lives, like Haley's little sister. I know there has been a lot of discussion of late about Social Security and Medicare and how we hope they are off the table, and that is good, those two earned benefit programs being off the table. But there is a third program that is not an earned benefit, but I would argue that Medicaid is--Medicaid tells us who we are as a nation. It is as if we look into a mirror when we consider the Medicaid Program, and ittells us what kind of a nation we are or what kind of a nation we will be if we slash it the way that so many people around here have proposed in budget after budget, year after year, talking about slashing Medicaid arbitrarily and outrageously and obnoxiously. We are going to stop them from doing it once again, but I think it is important to remind people what we are talking about here. Medicaid is a program basically about three Americans: children from low-income families--and not just in urban communities, but there are certainly a high number of children in our cities who benefit from Medicaid. Thank God we have the Medicaid Program all these decades later. The utilization rate is actually higher among rural children or children who live in rural communities. They have a higher utilization of Medicaid in the Children's Health Insurance Program than urban kids by percentage. That is a fact, and we need to remind people of that. Medicaid is a program that also helps people with disabilities. You can't march around here every day or year after year and say that you really care about people with disabilities, that you fight for people with disabilities, and then go and cut the Medicaid Program like some have proposed. And the proposals to cut it haven't just been in the tens of billions of dollars. That is just the annual cut they want to propose. It has often been hundreds of billions of dollars over the 10 years within which we talk about budgets around here and appropriations--hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts. That is what some want to do. We have to remind ourselves again that this is a program about children and about people with disabilities. The third group of Americans, of course, is older Americans, our seniors. A lot of middle-class families may not know it, but their mom or their dad or a loved one is in a nursing home solely because of Medicaid. You can't get into the nursing home, unless you can pay out of your own pocket, without the Medicaid Program. We could actually call the Medicaid Program the senior long-term care program or we could call it the program that provides healthcare to kids or we could call it the program that helps children with disabilities. Now we are told that the House Republican Study Committee fiscal year 2023 budget plans to cut Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Affordable Care Act--all three. They want to cut the Affordable Care Act marketplace subsidy spending by nearly half over the next decade. Again, when it comes to Medicaid, we are talking about a program that provides the funding for almost half of the births in America. So everyone who claims to care about children and babies and still wants to cut Medicaid has some explaining to do when you want to substantially cut a program that provides the funding for half of the births in the United States of America. It also provides almost half of the funding and support for long-term care services--services and supports, I should say--for older adults and people with disabilities. That is what the program is. This Republican Study Committee goes on to say their budget plan converts Medicaid to a block grant program where Federal funding would be capped and States would receive a fixed amount regardless of their actual costs. Here is what that means in real life: A State gets a block of money, a block grant, and when the State's costs go up for children or people with disabilities or seniors, and they hit the cap of that, those Americans are on their own. They are on their own because the State is out of money. That is what that means in the real world. But it gets worse. This plan also, thirdly, wants to cut the Federal so-called FMAP, the Federal medical assistance percentage, the percentage that the Federal Government pays for Medicaid. They want to cut that all the way down to 50 percent instead of the numbers that it has been at for years--so much higher. That is also a bad idea. So when we get back to this on what it means for families, we also have to consider what not just Sienna's sister said in her letter to me, but what about Sienna's mom, whom I quoted just a little bit a moment ago? Here is what Sienna's mom said: As I entered this new world-- Because she just had a daughter diagnosed with Down syndrome. As I entered this new world of early intervention, therapies, and medical needs, I began to realize just how much of a financial toll this would take on us if it weren't for the protections of the [Affordable Care Act] and Medicaid. She goes on to describe that. She says: Sienna receives 7 weekly therapies. The costs of those alone are $3,400 per week. That is $3,400 per week for those seven therapies. Without the ACA, her therapies and medical care would have quickly exceeded the lifetime cap-- Which was addressed in the ACA-- and Sienna would be uninsurable for the rest of her life and left without access to life saving care. Uninsurable. I can't tell you the number of times that has been in letters that I receive from parents worried about their child who has a disability in the United States of America, the most powerful country in the history of the world. These families are worried about their child with a disability not having access to services, not having access to those therapies, not having access to what they need to live their lives, and becoming ``uninsurable.'' That is an abomination. We are not the greatest country in the world if we do that. We are nowhere near the greatest country in the world if we do that. That would be a stain on America. Every one of us should be ashamed of that if that were to transpire. If that America transpired, it would diminish all of us. It doesn't matter what else we do around here if that happens. That is not the America that I think most people believe we are and should be, but some want to go there. I know they have all this talk about, oh, well, the cost of Medicaid is getting so great, and it is ``unsustainable.'' That is Washington gobbledygook for people who do not have the guts, the political guts, to say: You know what, when you passed a tax bill in 2017 that gave away the store and so much else to big corporations for permanent corporate tax relief--and those same people who voted for that bill that gave permanent corporate tax relief to the biggest companies in the world, the biggest companies in the history of the world, are the same people who are saying: But we have to cut back on Medicaid because it is unsustainable. That is just throwing sand in the eyes of the people--that is what it is--blinding them with falsehoods. That is what that is. So we have work to do to prevent this from happening. Now, Mr. President, I am getting close to my time--and I am over already--but I wanted to make maybe two final points. We have had a concern, many of us, over the last number of years about access to Medicaid not being as stable as it should be; and that stability was enhanced by a provision called continuous coverage--that is the term of art, ``continuous coverage''--provisions that were enacted to ensure healthcare coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic. Across the country, Medicaid enrollment has increased since the beginning of the pandemic. For example, Pennsylvania's number went up to about 3.6 million people currently enrolled in Medicaid to keep their healthcare coverage uninterrupted. Over the last 3 years, States were prevented from disenrolling people with Medicaid. If not for the legislation passed in February of 2020, at the very beginning of the pandemic just before the CARES Act, people would have had to reapply for Medicaid on an annual basis. Studies have shown that this annual enrollment process can lead to unnecessary coverage losses due to administrative and procedural issues. This can be yet another barrier to ensuring that people with Medicaid continue to receive the coverage that they need. Now, here is the problem. Here is the challenge ahead of us. The appropriations bill passed in December set an end for the Medicaid ``continuous coverage requirement'' because we are not in the pandemic anymore, and that was enacted during the pandemic; and that appropriations bill provided guidance to mitigate coverage losses as this requirement ends. So this kind ofunwinding of some parts of Medicaid is set to begin April 1. States can start to disenroll people from Medicaid at the start of next month. So here comes our responsibility. Both parties in the Senate, both parties in the House--I should say, all three parties, Democrat, Republican, Independent--we have an obligation, a legal duty, a moral obligation that is inescapable to make sure that people know what they need to do to maintain that coverage. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are working with States to provide information, to promote continuous coverage, and, thirdly, to avoid inappropriate terminations as they begin to unwind this continuous coverage requirement. In Pennsylvania, the State I represent, the State is working diligently to clarify coverage in formats and languages accessible to enrollees to ensure that everyone understands their eligibility and can access the coverage that they are entitled to. My constituents are fortunate because Pennsylvania expanded Medicaid years ago, yet there are still States that have chosen not to expand Medicaid. We know that the expansion of Medicaid became easier with the passage of the American Rescue Plan. So we have to continue to encourage States to expand to make sure that more and more people get coverage. Let me end with this, Mr. President. As I outlined before, this is not just something nice to have. This is about life and death. It is about quality of life for families and for children, especially; but it is also about the risk of death if you don't have coverage. That is as true as any statement we could make, that this is about life and death. Here is what Sienna's mom--you heard from her sister, but here is what Sienna's mom said. And I will end with this. Towards the end of her letter, she said: I am proud to be Sienna's mom. This journey is full of wonder, joy, and unimaginable love. It changes life's most ordinary moments into the extraordinary. But with constant attacks on our healthcare, it's also agonizing work, hard decisions, and constant advocacy. It gets exhausting fighting for your child, having to prove their value to the world. This is a mother talking about her child and having to live almost a separate life as an advocate because people in this town, year after year, are proposing cuts that would badly damage the life of her daughter Sienna. She goes on to say: Once again, we as parents are forced to suit up for battle and prove that our children are worthy of healthcare. In America? Is that what we are asking parents to do? Parents who have had a reliance upon this program for years and, in some cases, decades and decades, we are asking them to suit up--again, as she said, ``to suit up for battle,'' to make the case to Washington as to why they shouldn't cut the Medicaid Program in America? That is an insult to all of us. She shouldn't have to suit up for legislative or policy battles. She should have the opportunity to not worry about that and just to live her life and take care of her children and to live a life that she has been able to live with the help that we provided through Medicaid and other supports. So we have some work to do here, to stop--not to talk about and hold hands and compromise--to stop them from cutting what they want to cut in Medicaid at all costs. So that is what I am going to be doing. We are going to stop this from happening. We can compromise on a lot of things around here, but not on that--not on cuts of hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years to Medicaid. Not in this America. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CASEY | Senate | CREC-2023-03-21-pt1-PgS875-3 | null | 6,045 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Affordable Care Act, passed some 13 years ago, and in particular to talk about the Medicaid part of that, taking the Medicaid Program and allowing States to sign up for an expansion of Medicaid. But I thought the best place to start, as any healthcare discussion should start, is to talk about just one family. This happens to be a Pennsylvania family. I will start with two sisters. I will start with the older sister. Her name is Haley. Haley wrote me a letter just about 2\1/2\ years ago now, talking about her little sister. Here is what Haley wrote to me. She talked about where her family lives in Pennsylvania, and then she said--her sister's name is Sienna--she said: My sister is my best friend. She has Down syndrome so sometimes things are harder for her. It took her a long time to walk and she is still learning to talk. Her therapists help her and sometimes I help her too. Then she goes on to talk about how she, Haley, introduces her sister Sienna to her classmates. She said that she shares her sister with her friends, and I am quoting directly what Haley says: Mommy and me read a story at my school to explain Sienna's muscles work different than ours. Our muscles are like rubber bands but hers are more like play-doh. Now my friends understand why things are harder for her and they all love her. They think she is the cutest and so do I. So said an older sister about her younger sister. Of course, her mom wrote a much longer letter to me about what that family is facing every day. I won't go through all of it tonight, but when this family received that diagnosis of Down syndrome, Sienna's mom said: Sienna's diagnosis came as a surprise to us. After enduring four miscarriages, she was our miracle baby. Our miracle baby surprised us on the day of her birth with her diagnosis and a heart condition. We were completely unprepared to raise a child with a disability. After I delivered her, a kind nurse explained to me how lucky we were to have Sienna here in Pennsylvania after the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Then her mom goes on to describe all the benefits that she received because of the Affordable Care Act and because of her residence in Pennsylvania. That is what we are talking about here when we talk about healthcare. This isn't a budget question only. This isn't just a policy discussion. This is about real people's lives. And the further away you get from real people's lives, the easier it is to make the calculation, as some have made around here, some Members of Congress whose healthcare is made available to them because of the Federal Government--that is why they have healthcare, because of the Federal Government. Whether they are in the exchange or they have it some other way, most Members of the U.S. Senate and the House have that healthcare because of the Federal Government. So those with healthcare provided by the Federal Government seek relentlessly--too many seek relentlessly to use Federal power to cut people off of healthcare. This is about real people's lives, not something abstract, not some remote discussion about policy and about budgets and deficits and appropriations. This is about real people's lives, like Haley's little sister. I know there has been a lot of discussion of late about Social Security and Medicare and how we hope they are off the table, and that is good, those two earned benefit programs being off the table. But there is a third program that is not an earned benefit, but I would argue that Medicaid is--Medicaid tells us who we are as a nation. It is as if we look into a mirror when we consider the Medicaid Program, and ittells us what kind of a nation we are or what kind of a nation we will be if we slash it the way that so many people around here have proposed in budget after budget, year after year, talking about slashing Medicaid arbitrarily and outrageously and obnoxiously. We are going to stop them from doing it once again, but I think it is important to remind people what we are talking about here. Medicaid is a program basically about three Americans: children from low-income families--and not just in urban communities, but there are certainly a high number of children in our cities who benefit from Medicaid. Thank God we have the Medicaid Program all these decades later. The utilization rate is actually higher among rural children or children who live in rural communities. They have a higher utilization of Medicaid in the Children's Health Insurance Program than urban kids by percentage. That is a fact, and we need to remind people of that. Medicaid is a program that also helps people with disabilities. You can't march around here every day or year after year and say that you really care about people with disabilities, that you fight for people with disabilities, and then go and cut the Medicaid Program like some have proposed. And the proposals to cut it haven't just been in the tens of billions of dollars. That is just the annual cut they want to propose. It has often been hundreds of billions of dollars over the 10 years within which we talk about budgets around here and appropriations--hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts. That is what some want to do. We have to remind ourselves again that this is a program about children and about people with disabilities. The third group of Americans, of course, is older Americans, our seniors. A lot of middle-class families may not know it, but their mom or their dad or a loved one is in a nursing home solely because of Medicaid. You can't get into the nursing home, unless you can pay out of your own pocket, without the Medicaid Program. We could actually call the Medicaid Program the senior long-term care program or we could call it the program that provides healthcare to kids or we could call it the program that helps children with disabilities. Now we are told that the House Republican Study Committee fiscal year 2023 budget plans to cut Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Affordable Care Act--all three. They want to cut the Affordable Care Act marketplace subsidy spending by nearly half over the next decade. Again, when it comes to Medicaid, we are talking about a program that provides the funding for almost half of the births in America. So everyone who claims to care about children and babies and still wants to cut Medicaid has some explaining to do when you want to substantially cut a program that provides the funding for half of the births in the United States of America. It also provides almost half of the funding and support for long-term care services--services and supports, I should say--for older adults and people with disabilities. That is what the program is. This Republican Study Committee goes on to say their budget plan converts Medicaid to a block grant program where Federal funding would be capped and States would receive a fixed amount regardless of their actual costs. Here is what that means in real life: A State gets a block of money, a block grant, and when the State's costs go up for children or people with disabilities or seniors, and they hit the cap of that, those Americans are on their own. They are on their own because the State is out of money. That is what that means in the real world. But it gets worse. This plan also, thirdly, wants to cut the Federal so-called FMAP, the Federal medical assistance percentage, the percentage that the Federal Government pays for Medicaid. They want to cut that all the way down to 50 percent instead of the numbers that it has been at for years--so much higher. That is also a bad idea. So when we get back to this on what it means for families, we also have to consider what not just Sienna's sister said in her letter to me, but what about Sienna's mom, whom I quoted just a little bit a moment ago? Here is what Sienna's mom said: As I entered this new world-- Because she just had a daughter diagnosed with Down syndrome. As I entered this new world of early intervention, therapies, and medical needs, I began to realize just how much of a financial toll this would take on us if it weren't for the protections of the [Affordable Care Act] and Medicaid. She goes on to describe that. She says: Sienna receives 7 weekly therapies. The costs of those alone are $3,400 per week. That is $3,400 per week for those seven therapies. Without the ACA, her therapies and medical care would have quickly exceeded the lifetime cap-- Which was addressed in the ACA-- and Sienna would be uninsurable for the rest of her life and left without access to life saving care. Uninsurable. I can't tell you the number of times that has been in letters that I receive from parents worried about their child who has a disability in the United States of America, the most powerful country in the history of the world. These families are worried about their child with a disability not having access to services, not having access to those therapies, not having access to what they need to live their lives, and becoming ``uninsurable.'' That is an abomination. We are not the greatest country in the world if we do that. We are nowhere near the greatest country in the world if we do that. That would be a stain on America. Every one of us should be ashamed of that if that were to transpire. If that America transpired, it would diminish all of us. It doesn't matter what else we do around here if that happens. That is not the America that I think most people believe we are and should be, but some want to go there. I know they have all this talk about, oh, well, the cost of Medicaid is getting so great, and it is ``unsustainable.'' That is Washington gobbledygook for people who do not have the guts, the political guts, to say: You know what, when you passed a tax bill in 2017 that gave away the store and so much else to big corporations for permanent corporate tax relief--and those same people who voted for that bill that gave permanent corporate tax relief to the biggest companies in the world, the biggest companies in the history of the world, are the same people who are saying: But we have to cut back on Medicaid because it is unsustainable. That is just throwing sand in the eyes of the people--that is what it is--blinding them with falsehoods. That is what that is. So we have work to do to prevent this from happening. Now, Mr. President, I am getting close to my time--and I am over already--but I wanted to make maybe two final points. We have had a concern, many of us, over the last number of years about access to Medicaid not being as stable as it should be; and that stability was enhanced by a provision called continuous coverage--that is the term of art, ``continuous coverage''--provisions that were enacted to ensure healthcare coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic. Across the country, Medicaid enrollment has increased since the beginning of the pandemic. For example, Pennsylvania's number went up to about 3.6 million people currently enrolled in Medicaid to keep their healthcare coverage uninterrupted. Over the last 3 years, States were prevented from disenrolling people with Medicaid. If not for the legislation passed in February of 2020, at the very beginning of the pandemic just before the CARES Act, people would have had to reapply for Medicaid on an annual basis. Studies have shown that this annual enrollment process can lead to unnecessary coverage losses due to administrative and procedural issues. This can be yet another barrier to ensuring that people with Medicaid continue to receive the coverage that they need. Now, here is the problem. Here is the challenge ahead of us. The appropriations bill passed in December set an end for the Medicaid ``continuous coverage requirement'' because we are not in the pandemic anymore, and that was enacted during the pandemic; and that appropriations bill provided guidance to mitigate coverage losses as this requirement ends. So this kind ofunwinding of some parts of Medicaid is set to begin April 1. States can start to disenroll people from Medicaid at the start of next month. So here comes our responsibility. Both parties in the Senate, both parties in the House--I should say, all three parties, Democrat, Republican, Independent--we have an obligation, a legal duty, a moral obligation that is inescapable to make sure that people know what they need to do to maintain that coverage. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are working with States to provide information, to promote continuous coverage, and, thirdly, to avoid inappropriate terminations as they begin to unwind this continuous coverage requirement. In Pennsylvania, the State I represent, the State is working diligently to clarify coverage in formats and languages accessible to enrollees to ensure that everyone understands their eligibility and can access the coverage that they are entitled to. My constituents are fortunate because Pennsylvania expanded Medicaid years ago, yet there are still States that have chosen not to expand Medicaid. We know that the expansion of Medicaid became easier with the passage of the American Rescue Plan. So we have to continue to encourage States to expand to make sure that more and more people get coverage. Let me end with this, Mr. President. As I outlined before, this is not just something nice to have. This is about life and death. It is about quality of life for families and for children, especially; but it is also about the risk of death if you don't have coverage. That is as true as any statement we could make, that this is about life and death. Here is what Sienna's mom--you heard from her sister, but here is what Sienna's mom said. And I will end with this. Towards the end of her letter, she said: I am proud to be Sienna's mom. This journey is full of wonder, joy, and unimaginable love. It changes life's most ordinary moments into the extraordinary. But with constant attacks on our healthcare, it's also agonizing work, hard decisions, and constant advocacy. It gets exhausting fighting for your child, having to prove their value to the world. This is a mother talking about her child and having to live almost a separate life as an advocate because people in this town, year after year, are proposing cuts that would badly damage the life of her daughter Sienna. She goes on to say: Once again, we as parents are forced to suit up for battle and prove that our children are worthy of healthcare. In America? Is that what we are asking parents to do? Parents who have had a reliance upon this program for years and, in some cases, decades and decades, we are asking them to suit up--again, as she said, ``to suit up for battle,'' to make the case to Washington as to why they shouldn't cut the Medicaid Program in America? That is an insult to all of us. She shouldn't have to suit up for legislative or policy battles. She should have the opportunity to not worry about that and just to live her life and take care of her children and to live a life that she has been able to live with the help that we provided through Medicaid and other supports. So we have some work to do here, to stop--not to talk about and hold hands and compromise--to stop them from cutting what they want to cut in Medicaid at all costs. So that is what I am going to be doing. We are going to stop this from happening. We can compromise on a lot of things around here, but not on that--not on cuts of hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years to Medicaid. Not in this America. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CASEY | Senate | CREC-2023-03-21-pt1-PgS875-3 | null | 6,046 |
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-2023-03-22-pt1-PgH1309-4 | null | 6,047 |
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. 1093) to direct the Secretary of State to submit to Congress a report on implementation of the advanced capabilities pillar of the trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-03-22-pt1-PgH1316-4 | null | 6,048 |
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. 1159) to amend the Taiwan Assurance Act of 2020 to require periodic reviews and updated reports relating to the Department of State's Taiwan Guidelines, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-03-22-pt1-PgH1317 | null | 6,049 |
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: Mrs. HOUCHIN: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 241. a Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5) to ensure the rights of parents are honored and protected in the Nation's public schools (Rept. 118-12). Referred to the House Calendar. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-03-22-pt1-PgH1325 | null | 6,050 |
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: Mrs. HOUCHIN: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 241. a Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5) to ensure the rights of parents are honored and protected in the Nation's public schools (Rept. 118-12). Referred to the House Calendar. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-03-22-pt1-PgH1325 | null | 6,051 |
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-2023-03-22-pt1-PgH1327 | null | 6,052 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | RESTRICT Act Mr. President, I wanted to discuss something because there has been a lot of talk about TikTok in the Halls of Congress lately and I think with good reason because it is becoming increasingly clear that TikTok poses serious national security concerns. TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, are Chinese-owned entities with ties to the Chinese Communist Party; and after a Chinese spy balloon floated over our country a few weeks ago, I think it is obvious to everyone that the Chinese Communist Party is hostile to the interests of the United States and spies on American citizens. I can think of few better or easier ways to spy on American citizens or manipulate American public opinion than to make use of a popular app that is used by over 100 million Americans. In the United States, of course, we have the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution to protect the data Americans provide to apps from being seized by the government, but the Chinese Communist Party has no such restraints. In fact, Chinese law requires social media and technology companies to provide information, including individually identifiable personal information, to the Chinese Government when asked. So there is no legal framework in China to effectively protect TikTok users or users of any China-based app from having their personal information turned over to the Chinese Communist Party. There are already concerning signs that TikTok users' personal information is not secure. It was reported last year that China-based employees of ByteDance had repeatedly accessed private data from TikTok users in the United States despite TikTok's claim to the contrary; and in December 2022, it was found that ByteDance's employees inside China used the app to obtain the locations of journalists who worked on stories highlighting TikTok's national security risks. This, obviously, has implications for Americans' personal security and privacy, and it raises troubling questions about how the Chinese Communist Party could use TikTok for its own ends whether that is using personal data to develop sources for espionage or manipulating content to advance the Communist Party's agenda. TikTok is not the first time technology from a hostile nation has posed a serious security concern. Before there was TikTok, we had to engage in a protracted effort to remove technology from Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE from our telecommunications networks after U.S. security officials raised concerns that much of Huawei's and ZTE's equipment was built with ``backdoors,'' giving the Chinese Communist Party access to global communications networks. The digital age has come with enormous benefits, but it also comes with substantial new threats, not least the threat of a hostile foreign government exploiting communications technology for nefarious purposes. And that threat increases substantially when we are talking about technology, from hardware to social media apps, produced by companies in hostile nations and affiliated with hostile governments. In recent years, a number of foreign companies in the information and communications technology space--many of them subject to the control of hostile governments--has gained significant market share. Current law provides some remedies for confronting the dangers these companies present. For example, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or what we call CFIUS, can block attempted investments from foreign companies if these investments are determined to present a national security threat, but the authorities the Federal Government currently has were fashioned in a predigital age and, therefore, are not designed for the specific threats posed by digital technology controlled by foreign adversary nations. As a result, the Federal Government is limited in what it can do in situations like the one we currently face with TikTok. What is needed is a comprehensive framework for responding to national security risks posed by foreign adversary-owned digital technology whether that is TikTok or some other app or mobile phone technology or internet hardware. While CFIUS has the ability to address some risks, the reality is that the mere presence of a technology from a foreign adversary in the United States does not trigger a CFIUS review. For a tech platform that does not acquire, merge with, or invest in a U.S. company, the CFIUS review simply does not apply. For example, WeChat, the other Chinese-controlled app that President Trump sought to ban back in 2020, is, apparently, not subject to a CFIUS review. Legislation is necessary to fill this important gap in authority. That is why earlier this month, Democrat Senator Mark Warner, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I introduced the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats That Risk Information and Communications Technology Act--the long way of saying or the acronym--the RESTRICT Act, which now has the support of 18 Senators from both parties. Our legislation would create a comprehensive process, based at the U.S. Department of Commerce, for identifying and mitigating foreign threats to information and communications technology products and services. Now, I want to emphasize that the authorities of the RESTRICT Act only apply to six foreign adversary countries: China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba. Under our bill, the Department of Commerce would review any information and communications technology product from these countries that is deemed to present a possible security threat, with an emphasis on products used in critical telecommunications infrastructure or with serious national security implications. And the Secretary of Commerce would be required to develop a range of measures to mitigate the danger posed by these products, up to and including a total ban on the product in question. The bill would also ensure transparency by requiring the Commerce Secretary to coordinate with the Director of National Intelligence to provide declassified information on why any measures taken against foreign adversary-owned technology products were necessary in the first place. Importantly, the RESTRICT Act also requires the Secretary of Commerce to act within 180 days after initiating a review. A common complaint about the ongoing CFIUS review of TikTok is that it has been open-ended and taken years to complete. By comparison, the RESTRICT Act requires quick action to take the necessary steps to mitigate an undue risk from technology of a foreign adversary nation. Mr. President, there is bipartisan acknowledgement that TikTok poses anational security threat, and the RESTRICT Act provides a framework for confronting both current and future risks. I am grateful to both Republican and Democratic colleagues for joining Senator Warner and me to introduce this bill. It is time to update our laws to ensure that we are able to confront the national security threats posed by foreign adversary technology. I look forward to working with colleagues from both parties in both Chambers to advance the RESTRICT Act and get it to the President's desk. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-22-pt1-PgS885 | null | 6,053 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | RESTRICT Act Mr. President, I wanted to discuss something because there has been a lot of talk about TikTok in the Halls of Congress lately and I think with good reason because it is becoming increasingly clear that TikTok poses serious national security concerns. TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, are Chinese-owned entities with ties to the Chinese Communist Party; and after a Chinese spy balloon floated over our country a few weeks ago, I think it is obvious to everyone that the Chinese Communist Party is hostile to the interests of the United States and spies on American citizens. I can think of few better or easier ways to spy on American citizens or manipulate American public opinion than to make use of a popular app that is used by over 100 million Americans. In the United States, of course, we have the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution to protect the data Americans provide to apps from being seized by the government, but the Chinese Communist Party has no such restraints. In fact, Chinese law requires social media and technology companies to provide information, including individually identifiable personal information, to the Chinese Government when asked. So there is no legal framework in China to effectively protect TikTok users or users of any China-based app from having their personal information turned over to the Chinese Communist Party. There are already concerning signs that TikTok users' personal information is not secure. It was reported last year that China-based employees of ByteDance had repeatedly accessed private data from TikTok users in the United States despite TikTok's claim to the contrary; and in December 2022, it was found that ByteDance's employees inside China used the app to obtain the locations of journalists who worked on stories highlighting TikTok's national security risks. This, obviously, has implications for Americans' personal security and privacy, and it raises troubling questions about how the Chinese Communist Party could use TikTok for its own ends whether that is using personal data to develop sources for espionage or manipulating content to advance the Communist Party's agenda. TikTok is not the first time technology from a hostile nation has posed a serious security concern. Before there was TikTok, we had to engage in a protracted effort to remove technology from Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE from our telecommunications networks after U.S. security officials raised concerns that much of Huawei's and ZTE's equipment was built with ``backdoors,'' giving the Chinese Communist Party access to global communications networks. The digital age has come with enormous benefits, but it also comes with substantial new threats, not least the threat of a hostile foreign government exploiting communications technology for nefarious purposes. And that threat increases substantially when we are talking about technology, from hardware to social media apps, produced by companies in hostile nations and affiliated with hostile governments. In recent years, a number of foreign companies in the information and communications technology space--many of them subject to the control of hostile governments--has gained significant market share. Current law provides some remedies for confronting the dangers these companies present. For example, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or what we call CFIUS, can block attempted investments from foreign companies if these investments are determined to present a national security threat, but the authorities the Federal Government currently has were fashioned in a predigital age and, therefore, are not designed for the specific threats posed by digital technology controlled by foreign adversary nations. As a result, the Federal Government is limited in what it can do in situations like the one we currently face with TikTok. What is needed is a comprehensive framework for responding to national security risks posed by foreign adversary-owned digital technology whether that is TikTok or some other app or mobile phone technology or internet hardware. While CFIUS has the ability to address some risks, the reality is that the mere presence of a technology from a foreign adversary in the United States does not trigger a CFIUS review. For a tech platform that does not acquire, merge with, or invest in a U.S. company, the CFIUS review simply does not apply. For example, WeChat, the other Chinese-controlled app that President Trump sought to ban back in 2020, is, apparently, not subject to a CFIUS review. Legislation is necessary to fill this important gap in authority. That is why earlier this month, Democrat Senator Mark Warner, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I introduced the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats That Risk Information and Communications Technology Act--the long way of saying or the acronym--the RESTRICT Act, which now has the support of 18 Senators from both parties. Our legislation would create a comprehensive process, based at the U.S. Department of Commerce, for identifying and mitigating foreign threats to information and communications technology products and services. Now, I want to emphasize that the authorities of the RESTRICT Act only apply to six foreign adversary countries: China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba. Under our bill, the Department of Commerce would review any information and communications technology product from these countries that is deemed to present a possible security threat, with an emphasis on products used in critical telecommunications infrastructure or with serious national security implications. And the Secretary of Commerce would be required to develop a range of measures to mitigate the danger posed by these products, up to and including a total ban on the product in question. The bill would also ensure transparency by requiring the Commerce Secretary to coordinate with the Director of National Intelligence to provide declassified information on why any measures taken against foreign adversary-owned technology products were necessary in the first place. Importantly, the RESTRICT Act also requires the Secretary of Commerce to act within 180 days after initiating a review. A common complaint about the ongoing CFIUS review of TikTok is that it has been open-ended and taken years to complete. By comparison, the RESTRICT Act requires quick action to take the necessary steps to mitigate an undue risk from technology of a foreign adversary nation. Mr. President, there is bipartisan acknowledgement that TikTok poses anational security threat, and the RESTRICT Act provides a framework for confronting both current and future risks. I am grateful to both Republican and Democratic colleagues for joining Senator Warner and me to introduce this bill. It is time to update our laws to ensure that we are able to confront the national security threats posed by foreign adversary technology. I look forward to working with colleagues from both parties in both Chambers to advance the RESTRICT Act and get it to the President's desk. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-22-pt1-PgS885 | null | 6,054 |
formal | Detroit | null | racist | The following petition or memorial was laid before the Senate and was referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated: POM-4. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Michigan requesting the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress approve the replacement of Michigan's statue of Lewis Cass with a statue of Coleman A. Young as part of the National Statuary Hall Collection and to take other actions related to this request; to the Committee on Rules and Administration. Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 23 Whereas, Congress authorized the creation of the National Statuary Hall Collection in 1864 to provide an opportunity for each state to honor two distinguished people with statues at the U.S. Capitol. Currently, Lewis Cass and Gerald Ford represent the state of Michigan in the collection. The statues were placed in the U.S. Capitol in 1889 and 2011, respectively; and Whereas, Federal law establishes a process by which states may request the replacement of a statue located in the National Statuary Hall Collection. The first step in the process is the state legislature adopting a resolution identifying the statue to replace and the person to be honored with a new statue; selecting the entity responsible for choosing the sculptor, and directing the method of obtaining funds to cover the necessary costs of the replacement. Federal law also requires that the state's governor submit a written request to provide a new statue to the Architect of the Capitol along with a description of the location in the state where the replacement statue will be displayed after it is transferred, and a copy of the resolution authorizing the replacement; and Whereas, A statue of Lewis Cass was placed in the U.S. Capitol on behalf of Michigan in the late 19th century in recognition of his service to the state of Michigan and United States. Lewis Cass served as a Governor of the Michigan territory, U.S. Senator from Michigan, U.S. Secretary of War, U.S. Secretary of State and U.S. Ambassador to France during his career; and Whereas, Honoring Lewis Cass with a statue in the National Statuary Hall Collection is no longer consistent with the values of the people of Michigan. While Lewis Cass was an accomplished public figure, he played a prominent role in the implementation of President Andrew Jackson's Indian removal policy, was a proponent of allowing states and territories to permit slavery, and enslaved at least one person himself; and Whereas, Coleman A. Young was the first African-American mayor of Detroit and one of the most accomplished leaders in Michigan's largest city's history. Young served his country as a bombardier and navigator with the Tuskegee Airmen during World War II. He demonstrated an early interest in justice and fairness, spearheading a protest against the exclusion of Blacks from segregated officers' clubs. Young became a union activist after the war and was elected to the Michigan Senate, serving for nine years. The people of Detroit elected him as their mayor for the first time in 1973, reelecting him four times over the next two decades. Young was known for championing needs of the city's Black community and for building coalitions among its business leaders. Under his leadership, the city saw the completion of a number of major projects, such as the Renaissance Center, Detroit People Mover, and Joe Louis Arena. Young's contributions to the city of Detroit our entire state make him deserving of a place in the National Statutory Hall Collection; and Whereas, The Michigan Statuary Hall Commission will select the sculptor and secure funding for this project, now, therefore, be it Resolved by The Senate (The House of Representatives Concurring), That we request the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress approve the replacement of Michigan's statue of Lewis Cass with a statue of Coleman A. Young as part of the National Statuary Hall Collection; and be it further Resolved, That we urge the Governor to communicate approval of this replacement to the Architect of the Capitol and to sign an agreement with the Architect of the Capitol to replace the Lewis Cass statue with one of Coleman A. Young; and he it further Resolved, That we hereby establish the Michigan Statuary Hall Commission. The commission will select an artist to sculpt the statue of Coleman A. Young. The commission shall be made up of five members, with one member appointed by each of the Governor, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Senate Majority Leader, the House Minority Leader, and the Senate Minority Leader; and be it further Resolved, That the costs of this entire project, including the costs of creating, transporting, and placing both statues at their respective locations and the costs related to ceremonies that may be held in Lansing and Washington, D.C., will be paid for by donations and other funding secured by the Michigan Statuary Hall Commission; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Governor, the Architect of the Capitol, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the members of the Michigan congressional delegation, and the members of the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-22-pt1-PgS908 | null | 6,055 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | SA 36. Mr. RISCH submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 316, to repeal the authorizations for use of military force against Iraq; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 2, line 5, delete ``hereby repealed'' and insert ``repealed effective 30 days after the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense have jointly certified to Congress that legal authorities permitting the detention of terrorists and the litigation position of the United States regarding the detention of terrorists would not be weakened by such repeal''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-22-pt1-PgS912-2 | null | 6,056 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | SA 36. Mr. RISCH submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 316, to repeal the authorizations for use of military force against Iraq; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 2, line 5, delete ``hereby repealed'' and insert ``repealed effective 30 days after the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense have jointly certified to Congress that legal authorities permitting the detention of terrorists and the litigation position of the United States regarding the detention of terrorists would not be weakened by such repeal''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-22-pt1-PgS912-3 | null | 6,057 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | SA 41. Mr. RISCH submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 316, to repeal the authorizations for use of military force against Iraq; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 2, line 5, delete ``hereby repealed'' and insert ``repealed effective 30 days after the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that legal authorities permitting the detention of terrorists and the litigation position of the United States regarding the detention of terrorists being held in whole or in part under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) would not be weakened by such repeal''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-22-pt1-PgS915 | null | 6,058 |
formal | public school | null | racist | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (House Resolution 241) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5) to ensure the rights of parents are honored and protected in the Nation's public schools, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-03-23-pt1-PgH1346-2 | null | 6,059 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (House Resolution 241) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5) to ensure the rights of parents are honored and protected in the Nation's public schools, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-03-23-pt1-PgH1346-2 | null | 6,060 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (House Resolution 241) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5) to ensure the rights of parents are honored and protected in the Nation's public schools, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-03-23-pt1-PgH1346-2 | null | 6,061 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. Votes will be taken in the following order: Ordering the previous question on House Resolution 241; Adoption of House Resolution 241, if ordered; and The motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 406. 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-2023-03-23-pt1-PgH1346 | null | 6,062 |
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. 406) to provide for the treatment of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations as an international organization for purposes of the International Organizations Immunities Act, and for other purposes on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-03-23-pt1-PgH1347 | null | 6,063 |
formal | public school | null | racist | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 241 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 5. Will the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy) kindly take the chair. In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5) to ensure the rights of parents are honored and protected in the Nation's public schools, with Mr. Murphy (Acting Chair) in the chair. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-03-23-pt1-PgH1386 | null | 6,064 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 241 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 5. Will the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy) kindly take the chair. In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5) to ensure the rights of parents are honored and protected in the Nation's public schools, with Mr. Murphy (Acting Chair) in the chair. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-03-23-pt1-PgH1386 | null | 6,065 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mrs. RODGERS of Washington: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 1155. A bill to prohibit the phase out of gasoline and prevent higher prices for consumers, and for other purposes (Rept. 118-13). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mrs. RODGERS of Washington: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 1158. A bill to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act with respect to new critical energy resources, and for other purposes (Rept. 118-14). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mrs. RODGERS of Washington: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 1141. A bill to repeal the natural gas tax (Rept. 118-15). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mrs. RODGERS of Washington: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 1140. A bill to authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to waive application of certain requirements with respect to processing and refining a critical energy resource at a critical energy resource facility, and for other purposes (Rept. 118-16). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mrs. RODGERS of Washington: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 1131. A bill to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to authorize the use of flexible air permitting with respect to certain critical energy resource facilities, and for other purposes (Rept. 118-17). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mrs. RODGERS of Washington: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 1130. A bill to repeal restrictions on the export and import of natural gas; with an amendment (Rept. 118-18). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mrs. RODGERS of Washington: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 1121. A bill to prohibit a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing (Rept. 118-19 Pt. 1). Ordered to be printed. Mrs. RODGERS of Washington: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 1085. A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to direct the National Petroleum Council to issue a report with respect to petrochemical refineries in the United States, and for other purposes (Rept. 118-20). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mrs. RODGERS of Washington: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 1070. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide the owner or operator of a critical energy resource facility an interim permit under subtitle C that is subject to final approval by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 118-21). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mrs. RODGERS of Washington: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 1068. A bill to amend the Department of Energy Organization Act to secure the supply of critical energy resources, including critical minerals and other materials, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 118-22). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mrs. RODGERS of Washington: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 1115. A bill to provide for Federal and State agency coordination in the approval of certain authorizations under the Natural Gas Act, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 118-23). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mrs. RODGERS of Washington: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 1058. A bill to establish a more uniform, transparent, and modern process to authorize the construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of international border-crossing facilities for the import and export of oil and natural gas and the transmission of electricity; with an amendment (Rept. 118-24 Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mrs. RODGERS of Washington: Committee on Energy and Commerce. House Concurrent Resolution 14. A resolution expressing disapproval of the revocation by President Biden of the Presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline (Rept. 118-25 Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mrs. RODGERS of Washington: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 1023. A bill to repeal section 134 of the Clean Air Act, relating to the greenhouse gas reduction fund (Rept. 118-26). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mrs. RODGERS of Washington: Committee on Energy and Commerce. House Concurrent Resolution 17. A resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the Federal Government should not impose any restrictions on the export of crude oil or other petroleum products; with an amendment (Rept. 118- 27). Referred to the House Calendar. Mr. WESTERMAN: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 1335. A bill to restart onshore and offshore oil, gas, and coal leasing, streamline permitting for energy infrastructure, ensure transparency in energy development on Federal lands, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 118-28 Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. discharge of committee Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIII, the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Natural Resources discharged from further consideration. H.R. 1058 referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIII, the Committee on Agriculture and the Budget discharged from further consideration. H.R. 1335 referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-03-23-pt1-PgH1407 | null | 6,066 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Pursuant to clause 7(c)(1)of rule XIII 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-2023-03-23-pt1-PgH1410 | null | 6,067 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Ricketts, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Cruz, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Coons, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Murphy, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Booker, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Braun, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Reed, Mr. Carper, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Brown, Mr. Casey, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Bennet, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Warren, Mr. Peters, Ms. Hassan, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Warnock, and Mr. Fetterman) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 119 Whereas the people of ancient Greece developed the concept of democracy, in which the supreme power to govern was vested in the people; Whereas the founding fathers of the United States, many of whom read Greek political philosophy in the original Greek language, drew heavily on the political experience and philosophy of ancient Greece in forming the representative democracy of the United States; Whereas Petros Mavromichalis, the former Commander in Chief of Greece and a founder of the modern Greek state, said to the citizens of the United States in 1821, ``It is in your land that liberty has fixed her abode and. . . in imitating you, we shall imitate our ancestors and be thought worthy of them if we succeed in resembling you.''; Whereas, in an October 21, 1823, letter to Greek scholar Adamantios Koraes discussing the ongoing Greek struggle for independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that ``[n]o people sympathise more feelingly than ours with the sufferings of your countrymen, none offer more sincere and ardent prayers to heaven for their success''; Whereas, on January 19, 1824, in a speech in support of his resolution to send an American envoy to Greece amid its struggle for independence, then-Congressman Daniel Webster recognized ``the struggle of an interesting and gallant people...contending against fearful odds, for being, and for the common privilege of human nature''; Whereas individual American Philhellenes, including future abolitionist Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe, future abolitionist Jonathan Peckham Miller, and George Jarvis, traveled to Greece to fight alongside and provide aid to the Greek people in their struggle for independence; Whereas the people of the United States generously sent humanitarian assistance to the people of Greece during their struggle for independence, often through philhellene committees; Whereas Greece heroically resisted Axis forces at a crucial moment in World War II, forcing Adolf Hitler to change his timeline and delaying the attack on Russia; Whereas Winston Churchill said that ``if there had not been the virtue and courage of the Greeks, we do not know which the outcome of World War II would have been'' and ``no longer will we say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks''; Whereas hundreds of thousands of Greeks were killed during World War II; Whereas Greece consistently allied with the United States in major international conflicts throughout its history as a modern state; Whereas the United States has demonstrated its support for the trilateral partnership of Greece, Israel, and Cyprus by enacting into law the Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act of 2019 (title II of division J of Public Law 116-94) and through joint engagement with Greece, Israel, and Cyprus in the ``3+1'' format; Whereas this support was bolstered in the United States- Greece Defense and Interparliamentary Partnership Act of 2021 (subtitle B of title XIII of Public Law 117-81), establishing a 3+1 Interparliamentary Group to discuss the expansion of co-operation in other areas of common concern; Whereas the United States and Greece's commitment to security cooperation led to the conclusion of a Mutual Defense Cooperation Agreement, which was updated in 2021, in order to enhance defense ties between the two countries and promote stability in the broader region; Whereas the ongoing United States-Greece Strategic Dialogue reflects Greece's importance to the United States as a geostrategic partner, especially in the Eastern Mediterranean and Balkans, and as an important NATO ally; Whereas Secretary of State Antony Blinken traveled to Greece in February 2023, for the fourth United States-Greece Strategic Dialogue and along with the Prime Minister of Greece, Kyriakos Mitsotakis and Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias reaffirmed the importance of the United States-Greece relationship and pledged to continue and increase cooperation based on shared values and interests; Whereas Greece and the United States have joined their democratic allies in standing in support of Ukraine following Russia's unprovoked invasion and in December 2022, Foreign Minister of Greece Nikos Dendias said Greece's ``support towards the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Ukraine is principled and unwavering''; Whereas the Government and people of Greece actively participate in peacekeeping and peace-building operations conducted by international organizations, including the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the European Union, and the Organization for Security and Co- operation in Europe; Whereas Greece remains an integral part of the European Union; Whereas the Greek-American community has greatly contributed to American society and has helped forge the strong ties between the United States and Greece; Whereas the Governments and people of Greece and the United States are at the forefront of efforts to advance freedom, democracy, peace, stability, and human rights; Whereas those efforts and similar ideals have forged a close bond between the peoples of Greece and the United States; and Whereas it is proper and desirable for the United States to celebrate March 25, 2023, Greek Independence Day, with the people of Greece and to reaffirm the democratic principles from which those two great countries were founded: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) extends sincere congratulations and best wishes to the people of Greece as they celebrate the 202nd anniversary of the independence of Greece; (2) expresses support for the principles of democratic governance to which the people of Greece are committed; (3) commends the Greek-American community for its contributions to the United States and its role as a bridge between the two countries; (4) notes the important role that Greece has played in the wider European region and in the community of nations since gaining its independence 202 years ago; and (5) commends Greece's support for the people of Ukraine in their fight for freedom against Russian aggression. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-23-pt1-PgS935-2 | null | 6,068 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | SA 42. Mr. RISCH submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 316, to repeal the authorizations for use of military force against Iraq; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 2, line 10, delete ``hereby repealed'' and insert ``repealed effective 30 days after the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that legal authorities permitting the detention of terrorists and the litigation position of the United States regarding the detention of terrorists being held in whole or in part under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) would not be weakened by such repeal''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-23-pt1-PgS940-2 | null | 6,069 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | SA 42. Mr. RISCH submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 316, to repeal the authorizations for use of military force against Iraq; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 2, line 10, delete ``hereby repealed'' and insert ``repealed effective 30 days after the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that legal authorities permitting the detention of terrorists and the litigation position of the United States regarding the detention of terrorists being held in whole or in part under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) would not be weakened by such repeal''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-23-pt1-PgS940-3 | null | 6,070 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | SA 43. Mr. RISCH proposed an amendment to the bill S. 316, to repeal the authorizations for use of military force against Iraq; as follows: On page 2, line 10, delete ``hereby repealed'' and insert ``repealed effective 30 days after the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that legal authorities permitting the detention of terrorists and the litigation position of the United States regarding the detention of terrorists held in whole or in part under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) would not be weakened by such repeal''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-23-pt1-PgS940-4 | null | 6,071 |
formal | public school | null | racist | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nunn of Iowa). Pursuant to House Resolution 241 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 5. Will the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gimenez) kindly take the chair. In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5) to ensure the rights of parents are honored and protected in the Nation's public schools, with Mr. Gimenez (Acting Chair) in the chair. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nunn of Iowa) | House | CREC-2023-03-24-pt1-PgH1415-4 | null | 6,072 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nunn of Iowa). Pursuant to House Resolution 241 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 5. Will the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gimenez) kindly take the chair. In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5) to ensure the rights of parents are honored and protected in the Nation's public schools, with Mr. Gimenez (Acting Chair) in the chair. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nunn of Iowa) | House | CREC-2023-03-24-pt1-PgH1415-4 | null | 6,073 |
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 the 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-2023-03-24-pt1-PgH1438 | null | 6,074 |
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-2023-03-27-pt1-PgH1445-2 | null | 6,075 |
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. 1154) to combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking in persons for purposes of the removal of organs, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-03-27-pt1-PgH1452-4 | null | 6,076 |
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. 1107) to direct the Secretary of State to take certain actions with respect to the labeling of the People's Republic of China as a developing country, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-03-27-pt1-PgH1453 | null | 6,077 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | (Ms. De La CRUZ asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. De La CRUZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember a giant in agriculture in the 15th Congressional District of Texas. Benno Luensmann of Seguin, Texas, passed away earlier this year after a storied career in Texas ag. Benno was successful in so many different areas that it is hard just to pick one. He and his brothers built their cattle business in Guadalupe County, a company grown from what his son called a beat-up sell barn that became a thriving enterprise. In addition to his success in cattle, Benno served the community as the local fair president and on numerous local committees. In addition to his community service and cattle business, he was an educator, having taught at Seguin High School and Texas Lutheran University. He also served as a consultant to the USDA and spent time in Asia before returning home. Benno rightfully received recognition for his accomplishments and leaves behind a legacy in ag and the larger Seguin community. To his wife, Shirley, and his children, Bryan, Reagan, Yvonne, and Donna, thank you so much for sharing your husband and father with the community. He touched many generations of farmers and ranchers and his local community. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-03-27-pt1-PgH1455-2 | null | 6,078 |
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-2023-03-27-pt1-PgH1464 | null | 6,079 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. GOOD of Virginia: H.J. Res. 45. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article 1, Section 8. Congressional Review Act 5 USC section 801-808 The single subject of this legislation is: Disapproving the Executive Branch action to transfer student loan debt to the taxpayer. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-03-27-pt1-PgH1465-13 | null | 6,080 |
formal | public school | null | racist | The following bills were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: H.R. 5. An act to ensure the rights of parents are honored and protected in the Nation's public schools; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. H.R. 406. An act to provide for the treatment of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations as an international organization for purposes of the International Organizations Immunities Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-27-pt1-PgS952-5 | null | 6,081 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | The following bills were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: H.R. 5. An act to ensure the rights of parents are honored and protected in the Nation's public schools; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. H.R. 406. An act to provide for the treatment of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations as an international organization for purposes of the International Organizations Immunities Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-27-pt1-PgS952-5 | null | 6,082 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Ms. Sinema) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: S. Res. 125 Whereas social workers enter the profession of social work because they have a strong desire to help empower the individuals, families, and communities of the United States to overcome issues that prevent them from reaching their full potential; Whereas, for more than a century, social workers have improved human health and well-being and enhanced the basic needs of all individuals; Whereas social workers follow a code of ethics that calls on them to fight social injustice and respect the dignity and worth of all individuals; Whereas, each day, social workers positively touch the lives of millions of individuals in the United States in an array of settings, including schools, hospitals, the military, child welfare agencies, community centers, and Federal, State, and local governments; Whereas the 2023 Social Work Month theme, ``Social Work Breaks Barriers'', embodies how social workers help empower the individuals, families, and communities of the United States to overcome hurdles that prevent them from achieving better health and well-being; Whereas social workers are one of the largest providers of mental health, behavioral health, and social care services in the United States, working daily to help thousands of individuals in the United States overcome mental illnesses, such as depression and anxiety, and meet basic needs; Whereas social workers are on the frontlines of the addiction crisis in the United States, helping individuals get necessary treatment and prevail over substance use disorders; Whereas social workers help individuals cope with death and grief; Whereas social workers help people and communities recover from natural disasters that are increasingly fueled by a warming climate, including hurricanes, drought, and flooding; Whereas social workers continue to help the United States live up to its values by advocating for equal rights for all, including people of color, people who are indigenous, people who are LBGTQIA2S+, and people who follow various faiths; Whereas the social work profession is one of the fastest growing professions in the United States, but the workforce is still not large enough to meet the demand; Whereas there is a need to make a meaningful investment in recruitment and retention within the social work profession; Whereas social workers serve in all levels of government; Whereas social workers have continued to push for changes that have made the United States a better place to live, including a livable wage, improved workplace safety, and social safety net programs that help ameliorate poverty, hunger, and homelessness; and Whereas social workers endeavor to work throughout society to meet individuals where they are and help empower those individuals and society to reach meaningful goals: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) supports the goals and ideals of Social Work Month and World Social Work Day on March 21, 2023; (2) recognizes with gratitude the contributions of the millions of social workers who have advanced the health and well-being of individuals, families, communities, and the United States since the founding of the social work profession more than a century ago and who continue to do so today; (3) acknowledges the diligent efforts of the individuals and groups who promote the importance of social work and observe Social Work Month and World Social Work Day; and (4) encourages individuals to engage in appropriate ceremonies and activities to promote further awareness of the life-changing role that social workers play. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-27-pt1-PgS964 | null | 6,083 |
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 13664 of April 3, 2014, with respect to South Sudan is to continue in effect beyond April 3, 2023. The situation in and in relation to South Sudan, which has been marked by activities that threaten the peace, security, or stability of South Sudan and the surrounding region, including widespread violence and atrocities, human rights abuses, recruitment and use of child soldiers, attacks on peacekeepers, and obstruction of humanitarian operations, continues 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 13664 with respect to South Sudan. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. The White House, March 29, 2023. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-03-29-pt1-PgH1615-2 | null | 6,084 |
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 theemergency 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 13694 of April 1, 2015, with respect to significant malicious cyber-enabled activities, and with respect to which additional steps were taken in Executive Order 13757 of December 28, 2016, is to continue in effect beyond April 1, 2023. Significant malicious cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13694 with respect to significant malicious cyber-enabled activities. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. The White House, March 29, 2023. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-03-29-pt1-PgH1615-3 | null | 6,085 |
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-2023-03-29-pt1-PgH1641-2 | null | 6,086 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, fire departments across the country rely on critical Federal resources that keep firefighters and emergency responders safe. These heroes need our support as they continue protecting our communities. That is why I urge my colleagues to support the Fire Grants and Safety Act. This bipartisan bill reauthorizes two vital grant programs administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and also reauthorizes the U.S. Fire Administration. Fire departments depend on these programs to address staffing needs, replace outdated equipment, fund fire training and education programs, and invest in health screenings for firefighters in the line of duty. It is clear that, without these grant programs, many fire departments, especially those in smaller or more rural communities, would simply not be able to invest in their vehicles, equipment, or training that they need to protect their communities. I urge all of my colleagues to vote to move forward with this important, bipartisan legislation that will help ensure that our firefighters and first responders have what they need. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PETERS | Senate | CREC-2023-03-29-pt1-PgS1016 | null | 6,087 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in 1905, Paul P. Harris, a Chicago attorney longing for a sense of community, formed the Rotary Club of Chicago. He envisioned an organization where local professionals could come together, share ideas, and form meaningful relationships. Today, what began as the Rotary Club of Chicago is now Rotary International, a community service organization of more than 1.2 million members with clubs on six continents. Since 1943, Rotary International has selected up to 150 Rotarians each year as recipients of the Service Above Self Award, their highest individual honor for Rotary members. This award recognizes exceptional humanitarian service, with an emphasis on personal volunteer efforts to help and serve others. This year, Rotary International has selected an incredible teacher, businesswoman, humanitarian, and civic leader to receive its 2023 Service Above Self Award: central Illinois' own Barb Malany. Born Barbara Bumgardner in Waco, TX, Barb's father served in the Air Force, which meant that Barb and her younger sister Sally never stayed at the same school for more than a few years. But through all of the moves and frequent change, Barb never neglected her studies. She began her college career in Munich, Germany, through an extension program through the University of Maryland. She finished her degree at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, where she studied English and German, and met LeGrand ``Lee'' Malany, a physics student, and now her loving husband of 58 years. After completing her undergraduate education, Barb earned her master's degree in special education at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. From there, Barb set out to fulfill her lifelong calling: improving the lives of children and young people by teaching English special education to high school students. To this day, Barb serves as a full-time substitute teacher in Springfield, IL. Aside from teaching, Barb also was a successful small business owner. For two decades, Barb and Lee owned and operated Flowers LeGrand and Gifts in downtown Springfield. Her shop was even designated Small Business of the Year by the Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce. But her service to Springfield went far beyond flowers and gifts. Barb was a founding member and president of Downtown Springfield, Inc., a Main Street organization that helped spearhead the redevelopment of Springfield in the 1990s. Barb's efforts earned her a commendation from the mayor of Springfield ``for public-spirited and praiseworthy endeavors.'' And Barb never strayed too far from her lifelong commitment to helping young people. She used her business to extend internship and mentorship opportunities to young people, an effort that earned her Supervisor of the Year by Springfield School District 186. Barb also has helped foster an enduring relationship between Springfield and Ukraine. Over the years, Barb has hosted three delegations of Ukrainians who visited Springfield. Thanks to Barb's advocacy, the relationship between Springfield and Ukraine has only grown stronger since Vladimir Putin's senseless invasion of Ukraine. Last year, Barb and other community leaders came together to show their support for Ukraine by setting up a blue and yellow light display at Springfield's Bicentennial Plaza and installing ``Peace for Ukraine'' banners in downtown Springfield. But above all else, Barb's commitment to others shines brightest through her role as a foster parent. Her first foster child was one of her high school students who, late one night, was approached by a police officer. The officer offered to take him home, but the young student had to tell the police officer that he did not have a place to live. When the police officer asked if there was anywhere he could take him, the young student gave him Barb's name, knowing that he would be safe with her. Barb took the student in at 1 in the morning, became licensed as a foster parent the next day, and cared for the student as foster child until he finished school and went out into the world. This sparked a new chapter in Barb's life as a foster parent. Over a 20-year period, Barb fostered 17 children, changing their lives for the better, building trust, and showing firsthand what it means to live a life of service to others. Barb's compassion for young people in difficult situations has never waned, and she continues to serve as a foster parent. So it comes as no surprise that Rotary International chose Barb as one of this year's Service Above Self Award recipients. Barb is the third member of Rotary District 6460 to receive this distinguished honor. As an active Rotarian for more than 30 years, Barb was just the second woman in Springfield to become a Rotarian. She has been instrumental in shaping and growing Rotary District 6460's youth programs, inspiring students along the way. She has occupied every leadership role in District 6460's youth programs and has hosted more than 20 exchange students, fully immersing herself into their lives as a nurturing and supportive mentor. The bonds she has formed have resulted in lifelong friendships with her students. Loretta and I congratulate Barb on receiving Rotary International's Service Above Self Award. And we thank Barb and her husband Lee for their many years of service to the central Illinois community, especially to our children and young people. Illinois is grateful for Barb's generosity, leadership, and service to others. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.) | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-03-29-pt1-PgS1045 | null | 6,088 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in 1905, Paul P. Harris, a Chicago attorney longing for a sense of community, formed the Rotary Club of Chicago. He envisioned an organization where local professionals could come together, share ideas, and form meaningful relationships. Today, what began as the Rotary Club of Chicago is now Rotary International, a community service organization of more than 1.2 million members with clubs on six continents. Since 1943, Rotary International has selected up to 150 Rotarians each year as recipients of the Service Above Self Award, their highest individual honor for Rotary members. This award recognizes exceptional humanitarian service, with an emphasis on personal volunteer efforts to help and serve others. This year, Rotary International has selected an incredible teacher, businesswoman, humanitarian, and civic leader to receive its 2023 Service Above Self Award: central Illinois' own Barb Malany. Born Barbara Bumgardner in Waco, TX, Barb's father served in the Air Force, which meant that Barb and her younger sister Sally never stayed at the same school for more than a few years. But through all of the moves and frequent change, Barb never neglected her studies. She began her college career in Munich, Germany, through an extension program through the University of Maryland. She finished her degree at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, where she studied English and German, and met LeGrand ``Lee'' Malany, a physics student, and now her loving husband of 58 years. After completing her undergraduate education, Barb earned her master's degree in special education at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. From there, Barb set out to fulfill her lifelong calling: improving the lives of children and young people by teaching English special education to high school students. To this day, Barb serves as a full-time substitute teacher in Springfield, IL. Aside from teaching, Barb also was a successful small business owner. For two decades, Barb and Lee owned and operated Flowers LeGrand and Gifts in downtown Springfield. Her shop was even designated Small Business of the Year by the Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce. But her service to Springfield went far beyond flowers and gifts. Barb was a founding member and president of Downtown Springfield, Inc., a Main Street organization that helped spearhead the redevelopment of Springfield in the 1990s. Barb's efforts earned her a commendation from the mayor of Springfield ``for public-spirited and praiseworthy endeavors.'' And Barb never strayed too far from her lifelong commitment to helping young people. She used her business to extend internship and mentorship opportunities to young people, an effort that earned her Supervisor of the Year by Springfield School District 186. Barb also has helped foster an enduring relationship between Springfield and Ukraine. Over the years, Barb has hosted three delegations of Ukrainians who visited Springfield. Thanks to Barb's advocacy, the relationship between Springfield and Ukraine has only grown stronger since Vladimir Putin's senseless invasion of Ukraine. Last year, Barb and other community leaders came together to show their support for Ukraine by setting up a blue and yellow light display at Springfield's Bicentennial Plaza and installing ``Peace for Ukraine'' banners in downtown Springfield. But above all else, Barb's commitment to others shines brightest through her role as a foster parent. Her first foster child was one of her high school students who, late one night, was approached by a police officer. The officer offered to take him home, but the young student had to tell the police officer that he did not have a place to live. When the police officer asked if there was anywhere he could take him, the young student gave him Barb's name, knowing that he would be safe with her. Barb took the student in at 1 in the morning, became licensed as a foster parent the next day, and cared for the student as foster child until he finished school and went out into the world. This sparked a new chapter in Barb's life as a foster parent. Over a 20-year period, Barb fostered 17 children, changing their lives for the better, building trust, and showing firsthand what it means to live a life of service to others. Barb's compassion for young people in difficult situations has never waned, and she continues to serve as a foster parent. So it comes as no surprise that Rotary International chose Barb as one of this year's Service Above Self Award recipients. Barb is the third member of Rotary District 6460 to receive this distinguished honor. As an active Rotarian for more than 30 years, Barb was just the second woman in Springfield to become a Rotarian. She has been instrumental in shaping and growing Rotary District 6460's youth programs, inspiring students along the way. She has occupied every leadership role in District 6460's youth programs and has hosted more than 20 exchange students, fully immersing herself into their lives as a nurturing and supportive mentor. The bonds she has formed have resulted in lifelong friendships with her students. Loretta and I congratulate Barb on receiving Rotary International's Service Above Self Award. And we thank Barb and her husband Lee for their many years of service to the central Illinois community, especially to our children and young people. Illinois is grateful for Barb's generosity, leadership, and service to others. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.) | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-03-29-pt1-PgS1045 | null | 6,089 |
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 Foreign Relations: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 13694 of April 1, 2015, with respect to significant malicious cyber-enabled activities, and with respect to which additional steps were taken in Executive Order 13757 of December 28, 2016, is to continue in effect beyond April 1, 2023. Significant malicious cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declaredin Executive Order 13694 with respect to significant malicious cyber-enabled activities. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. The White House, March 29, 2023. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-29-pt1-PgS1046-4 | null | 6,090 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHMITT. Madam President, today I rise in celebration of Robert Joseph Nuelle's 95th birthday, who has and continues to live a life defined by service. Born on April 7, 1928, in Jennings, MO, to Eugene and Sophie Nuelle alongside 11 siblings, Robert attended McBride High School in St. Louis. Following World War II, he chose to serve his Nation and enlisted in the U.S. Navy, the same path of his older brother Kenny. Both served as SeaBees. While serving, Robert was stationed in Pensacola, FL, and later served on a destroyer in the Korean war. He played baseball for the Navy's team, and in a very unforgettable moment, he had the opportunity to play with Major League Baseball Hall of Famer Ted Williams. And following his honorable discharge from the Navy, Robert played for the minor league affiliate of the Milwaukee Braves and played semi-pro baseball for another team. While an accident at work unfortunately ended his baseball playing career, Robert found success in other arenas. Robert worked at Telegraphic Services, later renamed to TSI Graphics, a company that specialized in ``Lino-Type,'' which entailed printing books using hot lead. While at TSI Graphics, Robert transformed the company by expanding their business to major publishers in New York and ensuring that the company operated as good corporate citizens. He retired in 1993. Following his retirement, Robert became heavily involved in philanthropic efforts. He volunteered at Wings of Hope, a humanitarian aviation organization, serving as the charity's chairman for their golf tournament alongside helping in the charity's other efforts. Robert also became involved with Friends of Kids with Cancer, where he still volunteers to this day. He has been the chairman of their golf tournament, delivered food to kids going through chemotherapy, and aided in the charity's mission, which is to support children going through cancer and their families. He still remains a cherished member of their organization. Robert also volunteers at a food pantry every Monday, undeterred by the pandemic. Robert and his first wife, JoAnn, married in 1955 and moved to Creve Coeur, MO. They had two children, Robert, Jr., and Mark. JoAnn passed away in 2005 after 50 loving years of marriage. Robert was remarried to Peggy Hummert in 2009. Outside of public service, Robert plays golf every week, weather permitting, and enjoys spending time with his children and grandchildren. Robert truly embodies sacrifice and service. Having served proudly in the military, spent his entire career at a single company, raised a loving family, and dedicated his retirement to philanthropy, he is a shining example of a great Missourian. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHMITT | Senate | CREC-2023-03-29-pt1-PgS1046 | null | 6,091 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-850. A communication from the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), transmitting, pursuant to law, the annual report of the National Security Education Program (NSEP) for fiscal year 2022; to the Select Committee on Intelligence. EC-851. A communication from the Chief Human Capital Officer, Small Business Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Deputy Administrator, Small Business Administration, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 28, 2023; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. EC-852. A communication from the Executive Director of the National Women's Business Council, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Council's annual report for fiscal year 2022; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. EC-853. A communication from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Reimbursement for Emergency Treatment'' (RIN2900-AQ08) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 20, 2023; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-854. A communication from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Updating Presumptive Radiation Locations based on the PACT Act'' (RIN2900-AR74) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 20, 2023; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-855. A communication from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Traumatic Injury Protection Program Amendments'' (RIN2900-AQ53) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 20, 2023; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-856. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a legislative proposal entitled ``Coast Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023''; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-857. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Revisions to Civil Penalty Amounts 2023'' (RIN2105-AF12) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 28, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-858. A communication from the Attorney for Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of the General Counsel, Consumer Product Safety Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Standard for Operating Cords on Custom Window Coverings'' (Docket No. CPSC-2013- 0028) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 28, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-859. A communication from the Attorney for Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of the General Counsel, Consumer Product Safety Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Standard for Non-Full-Size Baby Cribs'' (Docket No. CPSC-2019-0025) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 28, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-860. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, Office of General Counsel, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Department of Transportation, received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 20, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-861. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, Office of General Counsel, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 20, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-862. A communication from the Secretary of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Marine Recreational Information Program: Response to National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2017 Recommendations''; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-863. A communication from the Secretary of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``National Marine Fisheries Service: Response to National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2021 Recommendations''; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-864. A communication from the Secretary of Transportation, transmitting proposed legislation entitled ``To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide for young children to be seated adjacent to an accompanying adult passenger on aircraft, and for other purposes''; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-865. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Television Broadcasting Services; Yuma, Arizona'' (MB Docket No. 22-420) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-866. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``FR; Airport Safety Management System'' ((RIN2120-AJ38) (Docket No. FAA-2010-0997)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-867. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 4048'' ((RIN2120- AA65) (Docket No. 31473)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-868. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 4047'' ((RIN2120- AA65) (Docket No. 31472)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-869. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of Class D Airspace and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Selma, AL'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0922)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-870. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-22273'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1582)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-871. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-22353'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1573)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-872. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-22352'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1578)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-873. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-22354'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1580)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-874. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Cirrus Design Corporation Airplanes; Amendment 39-22368'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2023-0424)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-875. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes; Amendment 39-22348'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022- 1646)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-876. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Yabora Industria Aeronautica S.A.; Embraer S.A) Airplanes; Amendment 39- 22341'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2023-0166)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-877. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Yabora Industria Aeronautica S.A.; Embraer S.A) Airplanes; Amendment 39- 22344'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1243)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-878. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes; Amendment 39-22350'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2023-0168)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-879. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace LP Airplanes; Amendment 39-22349'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1253)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-880. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH and Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Gliders; Amendment 39-22349'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1406)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-881. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Schempp-Hirth Flugzeubau GmbH Gliders; Amendment 39-22339'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1484)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-882. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Airplanes; Amendment 39-22323'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1152)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-883. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, inc. Airplanes; Amendment 39-22343'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1480)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-884. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes; Amendment 39-22336'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1297)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-885. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes; Amendment 39-22329'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0810)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-886. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-22332'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1487)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-887. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-22359'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2023-0174)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-888. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Regional Airplanes; Amendment 39-22334'' ((RIN2120- AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1245)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-889. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, inc. Airplanes; Amendment 39-22333'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1485)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-890. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters; Amendment 39-22338'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1490)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-891. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, inc. Airplanes; Amendment 39-22331'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2023-0161)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-892. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Pratt and Whitney Canada Corp. Turbofan Engines; Amendment 39-22337'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1487)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-893. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Continental Aerospace Technologies GmbH Reciprocating Engines; Amendment 39-22355'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0172)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-894. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-22330'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1577)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-895. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled '' Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-22321'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1407)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-896. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-22325'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1408)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-897. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. (Type Certificate Previously Held by WALTER Engines a.s., Walter a.s., and MOTORLET a.s.) Turboprop Engines; Amendment 39-22301'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022- 1302)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-898. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters; Amendment 39-22328'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022- 1419)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-899. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Pratt and Whitney Canada Corp. Turbofan Engines; Amendment 39-22327'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1477)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 14, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-29-pt1-PgS1047 | null | 6,092 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) was added as a cosponsor of S. 113, a bill to require the Federal Trade Commission to study the role of intermediaries in the pharmaceutical supply chain and provide Congress with appropriate policy recommendations, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-29-pt1-PgS1053-2 | null | 6,093 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CASSIDY (for Mr. COONS (for himself, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Heinrich, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Reed, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Bennet, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. King, Mr. Brown, Mr. Manchin, and Ms. Collins)) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 136 Whereas, since their inceptions, each of the AmeriCorps and AmeriCorps Seniors national service programs have proven to be a highly effective way-- (1) to bring people of all backgrounds throughout the United States together in common cause to meet the most pressing challenges of communities in the United States; and (2) to promote the ethics of service and volunteerism; Whereas, each year, more than 200,000 individuals serve in AmeriCorps and AmeriCorps Seniors at nearly 40,000 locations across the United States to give back in an impactful way to communities, States, Tribal nations, and the United States; Whereas AmeriCorps and AmeriCorps Seniors funds have been invested in nonprofit, community, educational, and faith- based groups, and those funds leverage hundreds of millions of dollars in outside funding and in-kind support each year; Whereas AmeriCorps members and AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers have provided millions of hours of service nationwide, helping-- (1) to improve the lives of the most vulnerable people of the United States; (2) to protect the environment and restore public lands; (3) to contribute to public safety; (4) to respond to natural disasters; (5) to address food insecurity and public health; (6) to strengthen the educational system of the United States; and (7) to expand economic opportunity; Whereas AmeriCorps members and AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers recruit and manage millions of community volunteers, demonstrating the value of AmeriCorps as a powerful force for encouraging people to become involved in volunteering and community service; Whereas, for more than 5 decades, AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers in the RSVP, Foster Grandparent, and Senior Companion programs have played an important role in strengthening communities by sharing their experience, knowledge, and accomplishments with the individuals they serve; Whereas, since 1994, more than 1,250,000 AmeriCorps members have taken the AmeriCorps pledge to ``get things done for America'' through the AmeriCorps State and National, AmeriCorps VISTA, and AmeriCorps NCCC programs; Whereas AmeriCorps members nationwide, in return for the service of those members, have earned more than $4,400,000,000 to use to further their own educational advancement at colleges and universities across the United States and to pay back student loans; Whereas AmeriCorps is a proven pathway to employment, providing members with valuable career skills, experience, and contacts to prepare them for the 21st century workforce and support economic competitiveness in the United States; Whereas, in 2009, Congress passed the bipartisan Serve America Act (Public Law 111-13; 123 Stat. 1460), which authorized the expansion of national service, expanded opportunities to serve, increased efficiency and accountability, and strengthened the capacity of organizations and communities to solve problems; Whereas national service programs have engaged millions of people in the United States in results-driven service in the most vulnerable communities of the United States, providing hope and help to individuals with economic and social needs; Whereas national service and volunteerism demonstrate the best of the spirit of the United States, with people solving problems by working together to find community solutions; and Whereas AmeriCorps Week, observed in 2023 from March 12 through March 18, is an appropriate time for the people of the United States-- (1) to salute current and former AmeriCorps members and AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers for their positive impact on generations of Americans; (2) to thank the grantees, State service commissions, and community partners of AmeriCorps and AmeriCorps Seniors for making the programs possible; and (3) to encourage more people in the United States to become involved in service and volunteering: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) encourages the people of the United States to join in a national effort-- (A) to salute AmeriCorps members and alumni and AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers; and (B) to raise awareness about the importance of national and community service; (2) acknowledges the significant accomplishments of the members, volunteers, alumni, and community partners of AmeriCorps and AmeriCorps Seniors; (3) recognizes the important contributions made by AmeriCorps members and alumni and AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers to the lives of the people of the United States; and (4) encourages individuals of all ages to consider opportunities to serve in AmeriCorps and AmeriCorps Seniors. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-29-pt1-PgS1057-2 | null | 6,094 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. Cruz, Ms. Baldwin, and Mr. Sullivan) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 137 Whereas the Coast Guard Ombudsman program was formally established by Admiral James S. Gracey, the 17th Commandant of the Coast Guard, to provide a link between the Coast Guard command and Coast Guard families through the engagement of spouses of members of the Coast Guard; Whereas the leadership of Wanda Allen-Yearout for over 36 years helped establish and shape the Coast Guard Ombudsman program into the robust volunteer force it is today; Whereas Ombudsman Appreciation Day is celebrated on March 26, 2023, to honor Coast Guard ombudsmen for the dedicated service they provide to the mission-ready workforce of the Coast Guard; Whereas Coast Guard ombudsmen serve as volunteers-- (1) providing information and referral resources; and (2) acting as advocates for the families of members of the Coast Guard; Whereas the selfless Coast Guard ombudsmen volunteers are essential to the success of the Coast Guard, supporting families to enable service members and service commands to focus on mission requirements; Whereas, in 2022, Coast Guard service members were helping the public and carrying out missions, and ombudsmen across the Coast Guard were helping by making over 350,000 contacts with, and volunteering more than 13,000 hours to assist, Coast Guard families; Whereas, recognizing that military service involves sacrifices and difficulties with separation from family, frequent moves, new schools, and long distances from loved ones, Coast Guard ombudsmen respond to ensure military families are not alone by providing vital information to facilitate the transitions of those families to new assignments and to overcome family challenges; Whereas Coast Guard ombudsmen were vital to supporting family members after the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, the most extensive organizational transformation of the Coast Guard since World War II; Whereas, as the Coast Guard responded to and rescued displaced people during Hurricane Katrina, Coast Guard ombudsmen, often consisting of spouses of Coast Guard rescuers and hurricane evacuees-- (1) tracked and accounted for Coast Guard families; (2) rendered assistance; and (3) communicated vital evacuation information; Whereas, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Coast Guard ombudsmen recognized challenges and ensured the operational readiness of the Coast Guard was maintained by providing direct support to Coast Guard families; and Whereas, by volunteering on the home front, being available for Coast Guard families, and helping Coast Guard families obtain the resources and information necessary for success, Coast Guard ombudsmen help ensure that members of the Coast Guard and their families remain ``Always Ready'' to meet the needs of the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) celebrates Ombudsman Appreciation Day and Coast Guard ombudsmen on March 26, 2023; (2) is grateful to the women and men who volunteer their time as Coast Guard ombudsmen to assist the families of members of the Coast Guard; and (3) congratulates the volunteers of the Coast Guard Ombudsman program on 37 years of service. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-29-pt1-PgS1058 | null | 6,095 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 57. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 870, to amend the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 to authorize appropriations for the United States Fire Administration and firefighter assistance grant programs; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the appropriate place, insert the following: | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-29-pt1-PgS1059-2 | null | 6,096 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 57. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 870, to amend the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 to authorize appropriations for the United States Fire Administration and firefighter assistance grant programs; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the appropriate place, insert the following: | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-29-pt1-PgS1059-3 | null | 6,097 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 57. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 870, to amend the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 to authorize appropriations for the United States Fire Administration and firefighter assistance grant programs; which was ordered to lie on the table. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-29-pt1-PgS1059 | null | 6,098 |
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-2023-03-30-pt1-PgH1693 | null | 6,099 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.