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 | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. BENTZ: H.J. Res. 46. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I Section 8 clause 18 The single subject of this legislation is: CRA on designating Critical Habitat. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgH1695-21 | null | 6,100 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. DAVIDSON: H.J. Res. 47. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article V The single subject of this legislation is: Judiciary | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgH1695-22 | null | 6,101 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Ms. JAYAPAL: H.J. Res. 48. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to Congress under Article I of the United States Constitution and its subsequent amendments, and further clarified and interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. The single subject of this legislation is: This bill proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the rights extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgH1695-23 | null | 6,102 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. STAUBER: H.J. Res. 49. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution The single single subject of this legislation is: The purpose of this bill is to disapprove of Fed. Reg. 73488. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgH1695-24 | null | 6,103 |
formal | MAGA | null | white supremacist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, finally, on H.R. 1, the House is expected today to vote on Republicans' partisan, unserious, and so-called energy package that they call H.R. 1. First, once again, I want to make it clear: H.R. 1 is dead on arrival in the Senate, not because of politics but because it is so ridiculous and has been drawn up by a bunch of pro-oil Senators who have no regard for anyone else. No Democrat has been consulted. Obviously, the Republicans knew that in the House when they passed it, but they seem to want to go back. In H.R. 1, they go back to the MAGA supporters back home--the big oil companies, the oil wildcatters, and so many of the oil States that don't want to pay any taxes and that don't want anything to do with moving us forward as the climate gets worse and worse. The Senate is not going to waste our time on a bill that sets America back decades in our transition to clean energy. All it takes is a brief glance at H.R. 1 to realize it is just a giveaway to Big Oil. House Republicans' so-called energy package just guts important safeguards, environmental safeguards, on fossil fuel projects. It would lock America into expensive, erratic, and dirty energy sources while setting us back more than a decade on our decision to move forward on clean energy, which this Nation fully supports. Transmission, of course, is hugely important to increasing access on clean energy, but the Republican plan hardly even mentions it. So, again, the way to do this, Republicans in the House, is in a bipartisan way. We have a Republican House. We have a Democratic Senate. No party is going to be able to jam its way through without consulting the other side. That is true on the debt ceiling. That is true on the budget, and it is certainly true on H.R. 1. There are Republicans in the House and Democrats in the House, and there are Republicans in the Senate and Democrats in the Senate who want to sit down and do a serious energy package. We need to do it. Let's stop this brinksmanship. Let's stop this political game-playing. Let's stop this throwing of bones to the MAGA hard right, which represents, maybe, 5 percent of America. Let's roll up our sleeves. Let's get down to work and get something done on energy and on so many other issues. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1062-2 | null | 6,104 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on the budget and debt ceiling and ``show us your plan,'' House Republicans are themselves starting to see why their attempts to threaten default to secure spending cuts has been a terrible idea from the start. It is not only reckless; it is not only dangerous--it turns out they can't even follow through on it. This week, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee admitted that he doesn't even see a path to an agreement for lifting the debt ceiling, and at least 16 Republicans have never voted to raise the debt ceiling at all, even under President Trump. That is true. But the problem here isn't that there isn't a path. Of course, there is a path. It is staring Republicans in the face. The solution is what we Democrats have said from the start: Instead of threatening default, instead of brinksmanship, Republicans should work with us on a clean extension of the debt ceiling. We did it three times under Donald Trump. We have already done it under President Biden, and we should do it again. If Republicans want to push a separate discussion on the budget, that is their prerogative. In fact, it has been done many times by both parties in the past. But the Republicans would be reckless to take the full faith and credit of the United States hostage in order to force a conversation on the budget, particularly when there is an alternative tried-and-true path that has been used before: Separate the debt ceiling and raising the ability of us to pay our debts and discuss things on the budget--on taxes and on spending--which we always do. It is tying the two together that is reckless. So it is becoming clearer and clearer to Republicans themselves--even those in the House--that the only legitimate path forward is this: Let's have a bipartisan and clean extension of the debt ceiling, as we have done many times before, and then Republicans can push a separate discussion on the budget. The American people have listened to us. A month and a half ago, I started telling the Republican leader: Show us your plan. President Biden, Hakeem Jeffries, and many others have joined in on that call, and it is resonating from one end of America to the other. Of course, you can't sit down and discuss something if you don't have a plan. Speaker McCarthy just says: Let's meet. But what are they going to do--discuss the weather? the rearrangement of the furniture? Come on. Do it the right way. You are beginning to see what we have said all along--that the best way to do this is with no hostage-taking, no brinksmanship on the debt ceiling, but with a strong, avid, and passionate discussion on spending issues--one separate from the other. House Republicans cannot show us their plan, and as we said--as I predicted 2 months ago--a month and a half ago--it is going to be very hard for them to get 218 votes on any plan. So come on. Look in the mirror. See what is going on, and do it the right way. Speaker McCarthy, today is March 30. It has been long enough. You still haven't come up with a single specific cut that makes any difference in the debt that you want to do. Show us your plan. Drop the brinksmanship. Join Democrats on a clean extension of the debt ceiling. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1062 | null | 6,105 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would like to offer my congratulations the Honorable Sheila R. Tillerson Adams on her recent retirement as chief and administrative judge of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County and Seventh Judicial Circuit of Maryland and to thank her for her long career of distinguished public service. Judge Adams served as the administrative judge for 12 years. Judge Adams has been a trailblazer, the first Black woman to serve as a judge in Prince George's County. She graduated from Morgan State University in May 1979 with a bachelor of science degree in psychology, cum laude. She received her juris doctor degree from Howard University School of Law in May 1982 and a master of laws in taxation from Georgetown University Law Center in May 1987. She gained admission to the Maryland Bar in June 1983, the Federal Bar in July 1983, and the Supreme Court in May 1992. Judge Adams began her legal career in 1982 and, in 1984, became only the second Black female State's attorney in Prince George's County, after being hired by the State's attorney at the time, Arthur M. ``Bud'' Marshall. She was appointed by then-Governor William Donald Schaefer to the District Court of Maryland in Prince George's County in June 1993. She served with distinction in that capacity for 3 years before she was elevated to the Circuit Court for Prince George's County by Governor Schaefer's successor, Parris Glendening, in 1996. On September 4, 2010, following the Retirement of Judge William D. Missouri, then-Maryland Court of Appeals Chief Judge Robert M. Bell appointed her as administrative judge of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County and the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Maryland. Judge Adams led the court through floods and fire that damaged court facilities and the COVID-19 pandemic. She persevered. While she served as chief and administrative judge, Judge Adams articulated a vision statement to exemplify the court's goals when providing judicial services: ``The Circuit Court Welcomes All--A Forum for Justice.'' This statement has served as the foundation for every initiative, program, and goal at the court. Judge Adams expanded the Problem-Solving Courts to provide greater assistance to youth and adults facing a myriad of challenges. She established the Veterans, Re-Entry, Truancy Reduction, Juvenile Diversion, and Back on Track Courts to help people who have served in the military, people who struggle with substance issues, students with truancy problems, and the formerly incarcerated succeed in life. Through counseling, rehabilitation services, and intense monitoring, these programs are changing lives for the better every day. Judge Adams also focused on providing resources and assistance to survivors of elder abuse, sexual assault, domestic violence, and sex trafficking with the creation of the Prince George's County Family Justice Center--PGCFJC--an initiative of the circuit court. With more than 21 on-site partners, the PGCFJC provides a full array of colocated services through a coordinated, collaborative, and hope-centered advocacy model. Local government and private community-based organizations work together and efficiently meet survivors' needs. As the COVID-19 pandemic rampaged for nearly 3 years, Judge Adams enhanced the court's technological advancements and accessibility to the public, holding hearings and trials virtually, and providing litigants Zoom links via a website that provided all the information they needed to attend judicial proceedings. She maintained health and safety protocols in the courthouse to keep everyone safe. She also focused on security and led the way for the design and construction of a security checkpoint near the courthouse. Delivery vehicles now must go through a checkpoint where the Prince George's County Sheriff's Office K-9 Team looks for any hazardous or explosive materials inside them. Another security measure that Judge Adams established was a security command center complete with IT workers who monitor hundreds of security cameras throughout the courthouse complex. Designated officials at the center can monitor the courthouse complex 24/7. This state-of-the-art center was one of Judge Adam's primary security-related goals. Once the pandemic restrictions were lifted, Judge Adams implemented a new case management system called Maryland Electronic Courts, MDEC. Her goal was to transition court operations to an electronic system that is nearly paperless. With MDEC, attorneys are required to utilize electronic filing when representing clients in civil and criminal cases. Electronic filing is optional for litigants representing themselves. Employees also can access files virtually via the online system instead of having to hunt down paper files. Judge Adams modernized the court to make it a dignified space to resolve disputes and collaborated with many justice partners throughout the county to provide enhanced judicial services. A fearless and bold leader, Judge Adams' tenure and leadership will continue to impact Prince George's County and the legal system for years to come. Judge Adams cochairs the Law Links Committee of the Prince George's County Bar Association and has done so since 1993. Law Links is a paid summer internship program with local law firms and legal departments in the county that is committed to broadening the aspirations and possibilities of young people. It combines work experience with a law and leadership institute. All participants in the program are Prince George's County high school students. Throughout Judge Adams' exemplary career, she has received many awards and honors. Most recently, the J. Franklyn Bourne Bar Association presented Judge Adams with the Wayne K. Curry Spirit of Excellence Award for her trailblazing leadership. In May 2022, she was awarded the 2022 Gladys Noon Spellman Public Service Award at the 37th Annual Prince George's County Women's History Month Celebration. Last April, the Prince George's County Commission for Women presented Judge Adams with the 2022 Trailblazing Woman Award for her extraordinary legal career and achievements. Judge Adams is not the only public servant in her family. She is married to Timothy ``Tim'' J. Adams, the first Black mayor of Bowie in the 138-year history of the city. I thank both of them for their public service and wish Judge Adams a happy, well-earned retirement. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1085-2 | null | 6,106 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would like to offer my congratulations the Honorable Sheila R. Tillerson Adams on her recent retirement as chief and administrative judge of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County and Seventh Judicial Circuit of Maryland and to thank her for her long career of distinguished public service. Judge Adams served as the administrative judge for 12 years. Judge Adams has been a trailblazer, the first Black woman to serve as a judge in Prince George's County. She graduated from Morgan State University in May 1979 with a bachelor of science degree in psychology, cum laude. She received her juris doctor degree from Howard University School of Law in May 1982 and a master of laws in taxation from Georgetown University Law Center in May 1987. She gained admission to the Maryland Bar in June 1983, the Federal Bar in July 1983, and the Supreme Court in May 1992. Judge Adams began her legal career in 1982 and, in 1984, became only the second Black female State's attorney in Prince George's County, after being hired by the State's attorney at the time, Arthur M. ``Bud'' Marshall. She was appointed by then-Governor William Donald Schaefer to the District Court of Maryland in Prince George's County in June 1993. She served with distinction in that capacity for 3 years before she was elevated to the Circuit Court for Prince George's County by Governor Schaefer's successor, Parris Glendening, in 1996. On September 4, 2010, following the Retirement of Judge William D. Missouri, then-Maryland Court of Appeals Chief Judge Robert M. Bell appointed her as administrative judge of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County and the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Maryland. Judge Adams led the court through floods and fire that damaged court facilities and the COVID-19 pandemic. She persevered. While she served as chief and administrative judge, Judge Adams articulated a vision statement to exemplify the court's goals when providing judicial services: ``The Circuit Court Welcomes All--A Forum for Justice.'' This statement has served as the foundation for every initiative, program, and goal at the court. Judge Adams expanded the Problem-Solving Courts to provide greater assistance to youth and adults facing a myriad of challenges. She established the Veterans, Re-Entry, Truancy Reduction, Juvenile Diversion, and Back on Track Courts to help people who have served in the military, people who struggle with substance issues, students with truancy problems, and the formerly incarcerated succeed in life. Through counseling, rehabilitation services, and intense monitoring, these programs are changing lives for the better every day. Judge Adams also focused on providing resources and assistance to survivors of elder abuse, sexual assault, domestic violence, and sex trafficking with the creation of the Prince George's County Family Justice Center--PGCFJC--an initiative of the circuit court. With more than 21 on-site partners, the PGCFJC provides a full array of colocated services through a coordinated, collaborative, and hope-centered advocacy model. Local government and private community-based organizations work together and efficiently meet survivors' needs. As the COVID-19 pandemic rampaged for nearly 3 years, Judge Adams enhanced the court's technological advancements and accessibility to the public, holding hearings and trials virtually, and providing litigants Zoom links via a website that provided all the information they needed to attend judicial proceedings. She maintained health and safety protocols in the courthouse to keep everyone safe. She also focused on security and led the way for the design and construction of a security checkpoint near the courthouse. Delivery vehicles now must go through a checkpoint where the Prince George's County Sheriff's Office K-9 Team looks for any hazardous or explosive materials inside them. Another security measure that Judge Adams established was a security command center complete with IT workers who monitor hundreds of security cameras throughout the courthouse complex. Designated officials at the center can monitor the courthouse complex 24/7. This state-of-the-art center was one of Judge Adam's primary security-related goals. Once the pandemic restrictions were lifted, Judge Adams implemented a new case management system called Maryland Electronic Courts, MDEC. Her goal was to transition court operations to an electronic system that is nearly paperless. With MDEC, attorneys are required to utilize electronic filing when representing clients in civil and criminal cases. Electronic filing is optional for litigants representing themselves. Employees also can access files virtually via the online system instead of having to hunt down paper files. Judge Adams modernized the court to make it a dignified space to resolve disputes and collaborated with many justice partners throughout the county to provide enhanced judicial services. A fearless and bold leader, Judge Adams' tenure and leadership will continue to impact Prince George's County and the legal system for years to come. Judge Adams cochairs the Law Links Committee of the Prince George's County Bar Association and has done so since 1993. Law Links is a paid summer internship program with local law firms and legal departments in the county that is committed to broadening the aspirations and possibilities of young people. It combines work experience with a law and leadership institute. All participants in the program are Prince George's County high school students. Throughout Judge Adams' exemplary career, she has received many awards and honors. Most recently, the J. Franklyn Bourne Bar Association presented Judge Adams with the Wayne K. Curry Spirit of Excellence Award for her trailblazing leadership. In May 2022, she was awarded the 2022 Gladys Noon Spellman Public Service Award at the 37th Annual Prince George's County Women's History Month Celebration. Last April, the Prince George's County Commission for Women presented Judge Adams with the 2022 Trailblazing Woman Award for her extraordinary legal career and achievements. Judge Adams is not the only public servant in her family. She is married to Timothy ``Tim'' J. Adams, the first Black mayor of Bowie in the 138-year history of the city. I thank both of them for their public service and wish Judge Adams a happy, well-earned retirement. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1085-2 | null | 6,107 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Coons, Mr. Ricketts, Mrs. Shaheen, and Mr. Risch) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 145 Whereas Vladimir Vladimirovich Kara-Murza (referred to in this preamble as ``Mr. Kara-Murza'') has tirelessly worked for decades to advance the cause of freedom, democracy, and human rights for the people of the Russian Federation; Whereas, in retaliation for his advocacy, two attempts have been made on Mr. Kara-Murza's life, as-- (1) on May 26, 2015, Mr. Kara-Murza fell ill with symptoms indicative of poisoning and was hospitalized; and (2) on February 2, 2017, he fell ill with similar symptoms and was placed in a medically induced coma; Whereas independent investigations conducted by Bellingcat, the Insider, and Der Spiegel found that the same unit of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation responsible for poisoning Mr. Kara-Murza was responsible for poisoning Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny and activists Timur Kuashev, Ruslan Magomedragimov, and Nikita Isayev; Whereas, on February 24, 2022, Vladimir Putin launched another unprovoked, unjustified, and illegal invasion into Ukraine in contravention of the obligations freely undertaken by the Russian Federation to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, the Minsk protocols of 2014 and 2015, and international law; Whereas, on March 5, 2022, Vladimir Putin signed a law criminalizing the distribution of truthful statements about the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation and mandating up to 15 years in prison for such offenses; Whereas, since February 24, 2022, Mr. Kara-Murza has used his voice and platform to join more than 15,000 citizens of the Russian Federation in peacefully protesting the war against Ukraine and millions more who silently oppose the war; Whereas, on April 11, 2022, five police officers arrested Mr. Kara-Murza in front of his home and denied his right to an attorney, and the next day Mr. Kara-Murza was sentenced to 15 days in prison for disobeying a police order; Whereas, on April 22, 2022, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation charged Mr. Kara-Murza with violations under the law signed on March 5, 2022, for his fact-based statements condemning the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation; Whereas Mr. Kara-Murza was then placed into pretrial detention and ordered to be held until at least June 12, 2022; Whereas, if convicted of those charges, Mr. Kara-Murza faces detention in a penitentiary system that human rights nongovernmental organizations have criticized for widespread torture, ill-treatment, and suspicious deaths of prisoners; Whereas, on May 26, 2022, the United States Senate unanimously agreed to Senate Resolution 632 (117th Congress) calling for the immediate release of Mr. Kara-Murza, Alexei Navalny, and other citizens of the Russian Federation imprisoned for opposing the regime of Vladimir Putin and the war against Ukraine; Whereas, on July 27, 2022, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation charged Mr. Kara-Murza for his alleged engagements with Free Russia Foundation and Open Russia, both of which are nongovernmental organizations targeted by the law of the Russian Federation on undesirable organizations; Whereas, on October 6, 2022, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation charged Mr. Kara-Murza with high treason on the grounds that he cooperated with a North Atlantic Treaty Organization member nation, which was corroborated by the public speeches he delivered in the United States, Portugal, and Finland; Whereas, on March 3, 2023, in response to bipartisan requests from Congress, the United States Government imposed sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (22 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.) on three Russian individuals, Elena Anatolievna Lenskaya, Andrei Andreevich Zadachin, and Danila Yurievich Mikheev, for their involvement in the unjust detention of Mr. Kara-Murza; and Whereas Mr. Kara-Murza's attorney reported that his client's health deteriorated to the point that he was unfit to attend his hearing on March 16, 2023, as Mr. Kara-Murza was being treated for polyneuropathy, a condition that he sustained from poison attacks on May 26, 2015, and February 2, 2017: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) condemns the unjust detention and indicting of Russian opposition leader Vladimir Vladimirovich Kara-Murza, who has courageously stood up to oppression in the Russian Federation; (2) expresses solidarity with Vladimir Vladimirovich Kara- Murza, his family, and all individuals in the Russian Federation imprisoned for exercising their fundamental freedoms of speech, assembly, and belief; (3) urges the United States Government and other allied governments to work to secure the immediate release of Vladimir Vladimirovich Kara-Murza, Alexei Navalny, and other citizens of the Russian Federation imprisoned for opposing the regime of Vladimir Putin and the war against Ukraine; and (4) calls on the President to increase support provided by the United States Government for those advocating for democracy and independent media in the Russian Federation, which Vladimir Vladimirovich Kara-Murza has worked to advance. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1100 | null | 6,108 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. THUNE (for Ms.MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Daines, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Hickenlooper, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Kelly, Mr. King, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Markey, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Padilla, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Rounds, Ms. Smith, Mr. Tester, Ms. Warren, and Ms. Hirono)) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 148 Whereas the United States celebrates National Women's History Month every March to recognize and honor the achievements of women throughout the history of the United States; Whereas an estimated 4,718,255 American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women live in the United States; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women-- (1) have helped shape the history of their communities, Tribes, and the United States; (2) have fought to defend and protect the sovereign rights of Native Nations; and (3) have demonstrated resilience and courage in the face of a history of threatened existence, constant removals, and relocations; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women contribute to their communities, Tribes, and the United States through military service, public service, and work in many industries, including business, education, science, medicine, literature, and fine arts, including Pablita ``Tse Tsan'' Velarde, a Santa Clara Pueblo artist and painter whose art work depicted traditional Pueblo life and preserved Pueblo stories and knowledge, and whose paintings were commissioned for display at Bandelier National Monument; Whereas, as of 2023, more than 4,400 American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women bravely serve as members of the United States Armed Forces; Whereas, as of 2023, more than 20,800 American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women are veterans who have made lasting contributions to the United States military; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women broke down historical gender barriers to enlistment in the military, including-- (1) Laura Beltz Wright, an Inupiat Eskimo sharpshooter of the Alaska Territorial Guard during World War II; (2) Minnie Spotted Wolf of the Blackfeet Tribe, the first Native American woman to enlist in the United States Marine Corps in 1943; and (3) Marcella LeBeau of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, a decorated veteran who served as an Army combat nurse during World War II and received the French Legion of Honour for her bravery and service; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have made the ultimate sacrifice for the United States, including Lori Ann Piestewa, a member of the Hopi Tribe who was the first Native American woman to be killed in action while serving on foreign soil and the first woman in the United States military to be killed in the Iraq War in 2003; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have contributed to the economic development of Native Nations and the United States as a whole, including Elouise Cobell of the Blackfeet Tribe, a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, who-- (1) served as the treasurer of the Blackfeet Tribe; (2) founded the first Tribal-owned national bank; and (3) led the fight against Federal mismanagement of funds held in trust for more than 500,000 Native Americans; Whereas, as of 2020, American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women own an estimated 161,500 businesses; Whereas, as of 2020, Native women-owned businesses employ more than 61,000 workers and generate over $11,000,000,000 in revenues; Whereas American Indian and Alaska Native women have opened an average of more than 17 new businesses each day since 2007; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have made significant contributions to the fields of medicine and health, including-- (1) Susan La Flesche Picotte of the Omaha Tribe, who is widely acknowledged as the first Native American to earn a medical degree; and (2) Annie Dodge Wauneka of the Navajo Nation, who-- (A) advocated for better public health, education, and living conditions on the Navajo Nation leading to her becoming 1 of the first female council members for the Navajo Nation in 1951; and (B) was the first Native American to receive a Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1963; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have contributed to important scientific advancements, including-- (1) Floy Agnes Lee of the Santa Clara Pueblo, who-- (A) worked on the Manhattan Project during World War II; and (B) pioneered research on radiation biology and cancer; (2) Native Hawaiian Isabella Kauakea Yau Yung Aiona Abbott, who-- (A) was the first woman on the biological sciences faculty at Stanford University; and (B) in 1997, was awarded the Gilbert Morgan Smith medal, the highest award in marine botany from the National Academy of Sciences; and (3) Mary Golda Ross of the Cherokee Nation, who-- (A) is considered the first Native American engineer of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; (B) helped develop spacecrafts for the Gemini and Apollo space programs; and (C) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2019 1 dollar coin honoring Native Americans and their contributions; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have achieved distinctive honors in the art of dance, including Maria Tallchief or Wa-Xthe-Thon-ba of the Osage Nation, who-- (1) was the first major prima ballerina of the United States and was a recipient of a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Kennedy Center; and (2) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2023 1 dollar coin with her sister Marjorie Tallchief of the Osage Nation, Yvonne Chouteau of the Shawnee Tribe, Rosella Hightower of the Choctaw Nation, and Moscelyne Larkin of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma and the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, collectively known as the ``Five Moons'', for the legacy they left on ballet; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have accomplished notable literary achievements, including Northern Paiute author Sarah Winnemucca Hopkins, who wrote and published 1 of the first Native American autobiographies in United States history in 1883; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have regularly led efforts to protect their traditional ways of life and to revitalize and maintain Native cultures and languages, including-- (1) Esther Martinez, a Tewa linguist and teacher who developed a Tewa dictionary and was credited with revitalizing the Tewa language; (2) Mary Kawena Pukui, a Native Hawaiian scholar who published more than 50 academic works and was considered the most noted Hawaiian translator of the 20th century; (3) Katie John, an Ahtna Athabascan of Mentasta Lake, who was the lead plaintiff in lawsuits that strengthened Native subsistence fishing rights in Alaska and who helped create the alphabet for the Ahtna language; and (4) Edith Kenao Kanaka'ole, a Native Hawaiian language and cultural practitioner who-- (A) founded her own hula school, Halau o Kekuhi; (B) helped develop some of the first courses in Hawaiian language and culture for public schools and colleges; and (C) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2023 quarter honoring her significant contributions and accomplishments perpetuating Native Hawaiian culture and arts; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have excelled in athletic competition and created opportunities for other female athletes within their sport, including Rell Kapoliokaehukai Sunn, who-- (1) was ranked as longboard surfing champion of the world; and (2) co-founded the Women's Professional Surfing Association in 1975, the first professional surfing tour for women; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have played a vital role in advancing civil rights, protecting human rights, advocating for land rights, and safeguarding the environment, including-- (1) Elizabeth Wanamaker Peratrovich, Tlingit, a member of the Lukaax.adi clan in the Raven moiety with the Tlingit name of Kaaxgal.aat, who-- (A) helped secure the passage of House Bill 14, commonly known as the Anti-Discrimination Act of 1945 (H.B. 14, Laws of Alaska. 17th Regular Session, Territorial Legislature. Feb. 16, 1945), in the Alaska Territorial Legislature, the first anti-discrimination law in the United States; and (B) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2020 1 dollar coin honoring Native Americans and their contributions; (2) Zitkala-Sa, a Yankton Dakota writer and advocate, whose work during the early 20th century helped advance the citizenship, voting, and land rights of Native Americans; and (3) Mary Jane Fate, of the Koyukon Athabascan village of Rampart, who-- (A) was the first woman to chair the Alaska Federation of Natives; (B) was a founding member of the North American Indian Women's Association; and (C) was an advocate for settlement of Indigenous land claims in Alaska; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have succeeded as judges, attorneys, and legal advocates, including-- (1) Eliza ``Lyda'' Conley, a Wyandot-American lawyer and the first Native woman admitted to argue a case before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1909; and (2) Emma Kailikapiolono Metcalf Beckley Nakuina, a Native Hawaiian who served as the first female judge in Hawaii; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women are dedicated public servants, holding important positions in the Federal judicial branch, the Federal executive branch, State governments, and local governments; Whereas American Indian and Alaska Native women have served as remarkable Tribal councilwomen, Tribal court judges, and Tribal leaders, including Wilma Mankiller, who-- (1) was the first woman elected to serve as Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation; (2) fought for Tribal self-determination and the improvement of the community infrastructure of her Tribe; and (3) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2022 quarter honoring her legacy of leadership for Native people and women; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have also led Native peoples through notable acts of public service, including-- (1) Kaahumanu, who was the first Native Hawaiian woman to serve as regent of the Kingdom of Hawaii; and (2) Polly Cooper, of the Oneida Indian Nation, who-- (A) walked from central New York to Valley Forge as part of a relief mission to provide food for the Army led by General George Washington during the American Revolutionary War; and (B) was recognized for her courage and generosity by Martha Washington; Whereas the United States should continue to invest in the future of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women to address the barriers those women face, including-- (1) access to justice; (2) access to health care; and (3) opportunities for educational and economic advancement; and Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women are the life givers, the culture bearers, and the caretakers of Native peoples who have made precious contributions, enriching the lives of all people of the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) celebrates and honors the successes of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women and the contributions those women have made and continue to make to the United States; and (2) recognizes the importance of providing for the safety, and upholding the interests of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1101-2 | null | 6,109 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Mr. THUNE (for Ms.MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Daines, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Hickenlooper, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Kelly, Mr. King, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Markey, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Padilla, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Rounds, Ms. Smith, Mr. Tester, Ms. Warren, and Ms. Hirono)) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 148 Whereas the United States celebrates National Women's History Month every March to recognize and honor the achievements of women throughout the history of the United States; Whereas an estimated 4,718,255 American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women live in the United States; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women-- (1) have helped shape the history of their communities, Tribes, and the United States; (2) have fought to defend and protect the sovereign rights of Native Nations; and (3) have demonstrated resilience and courage in the face of a history of threatened existence, constant removals, and relocations; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women contribute to their communities, Tribes, and the United States through military service, public service, and work in many industries, including business, education, science, medicine, literature, and fine arts, including Pablita ``Tse Tsan'' Velarde, a Santa Clara Pueblo artist and painter whose art work depicted traditional Pueblo life and preserved Pueblo stories and knowledge, and whose paintings were commissioned for display at Bandelier National Monument; Whereas, as of 2023, more than 4,400 American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women bravely serve as members of the United States Armed Forces; Whereas, as of 2023, more than 20,800 American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women are veterans who have made lasting contributions to the United States military; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women broke down historical gender barriers to enlistment in the military, including-- (1) Laura Beltz Wright, an Inupiat Eskimo sharpshooter of the Alaska Territorial Guard during World War II; (2) Minnie Spotted Wolf of the Blackfeet Tribe, the first Native American woman to enlist in the United States Marine Corps in 1943; and (3) Marcella LeBeau of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, a decorated veteran who served as an Army combat nurse during World War II and received the French Legion of Honour for her bravery and service; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have made the ultimate sacrifice for the United States, including Lori Ann Piestewa, a member of the Hopi Tribe who was the first Native American woman to be killed in action while serving on foreign soil and the first woman in the United States military to be killed in the Iraq War in 2003; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have contributed to the economic development of Native Nations and the United States as a whole, including Elouise Cobell of the Blackfeet Tribe, a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, who-- (1) served as the treasurer of the Blackfeet Tribe; (2) founded the first Tribal-owned national bank; and (3) led the fight against Federal mismanagement of funds held in trust for more than 500,000 Native Americans; Whereas, as of 2020, American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women own an estimated 161,500 businesses; Whereas, as of 2020, Native women-owned businesses employ more than 61,000 workers and generate over $11,000,000,000 in revenues; Whereas American Indian and Alaska Native women have opened an average of more than 17 new businesses each day since 2007; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have made significant contributions to the fields of medicine and health, including-- (1) Susan La Flesche Picotte of the Omaha Tribe, who is widely acknowledged as the first Native American to earn a medical degree; and (2) Annie Dodge Wauneka of the Navajo Nation, who-- (A) advocated for better public health, education, and living conditions on the Navajo Nation leading to her becoming 1 of the first female council members for the Navajo Nation in 1951; and (B) was the first Native American to receive a Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1963; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have contributed to important scientific advancements, including-- (1) Floy Agnes Lee of the Santa Clara Pueblo, who-- (A) worked on the Manhattan Project during World War II; and (B) pioneered research on radiation biology and cancer; (2) Native Hawaiian Isabella Kauakea Yau Yung Aiona Abbott, who-- (A) was the first woman on the biological sciences faculty at Stanford University; and (B) in 1997, was awarded the Gilbert Morgan Smith medal, the highest award in marine botany from the National Academy of Sciences; and (3) Mary Golda Ross of the Cherokee Nation, who-- (A) is considered the first Native American engineer of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; (B) helped develop spacecrafts for the Gemini and Apollo space programs; and (C) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2019 1 dollar coin honoring Native Americans and their contributions; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have achieved distinctive honors in the art of dance, including Maria Tallchief or Wa-Xthe-Thon-ba of the Osage Nation, who-- (1) was the first major prima ballerina of the United States and was a recipient of a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Kennedy Center; and (2) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2023 1 dollar coin with her sister Marjorie Tallchief of the Osage Nation, Yvonne Chouteau of the Shawnee Tribe, Rosella Hightower of the Choctaw Nation, and Moscelyne Larkin of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma and the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, collectively known as the ``Five Moons'', for the legacy they left on ballet; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have accomplished notable literary achievements, including Northern Paiute author Sarah Winnemucca Hopkins, who wrote and published 1 of the first Native American autobiographies in United States history in 1883; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have regularly led efforts to protect their traditional ways of life and to revitalize and maintain Native cultures and languages, including-- (1) Esther Martinez, a Tewa linguist and teacher who developed a Tewa dictionary and was credited with revitalizing the Tewa language; (2) Mary Kawena Pukui, a Native Hawaiian scholar who published more than 50 academic works and was considered the most noted Hawaiian translator of the 20th century; (3) Katie John, an Ahtna Athabascan of Mentasta Lake, who was the lead plaintiff in lawsuits that strengthened Native subsistence fishing rights in Alaska and who helped create the alphabet for the Ahtna language; and (4) Edith Kenao Kanaka'ole, a Native Hawaiian language and cultural practitioner who-- (A) founded her own hula school, Halau o Kekuhi; (B) helped develop some of the first courses in Hawaiian language and culture for public schools and colleges; and (C) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2023 quarter honoring her significant contributions and accomplishments perpetuating Native Hawaiian culture and arts; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have excelled in athletic competition and created opportunities for other female athletes within their sport, including Rell Kapoliokaehukai Sunn, who-- (1) was ranked as longboard surfing champion of the world; and (2) co-founded the Women's Professional Surfing Association in 1975, the first professional surfing tour for women; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have played a vital role in advancing civil rights, protecting human rights, advocating for land rights, and safeguarding the environment, including-- (1) Elizabeth Wanamaker Peratrovich, Tlingit, a member of the Lukaax.adi clan in the Raven moiety with the Tlingit name of Kaaxgal.aat, who-- (A) helped secure the passage of House Bill 14, commonly known as the Anti-Discrimination Act of 1945 (H.B. 14, Laws of Alaska. 17th Regular Session, Territorial Legislature. Feb. 16, 1945), in the Alaska Territorial Legislature, the first anti-discrimination law in the United States; and (B) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2020 1 dollar coin honoring Native Americans and their contributions; (2) Zitkala-Sa, a Yankton Dakota writer and advocate, whose work during the early 20th century helped advance the citizenship, voting, and land rights of Native Americans; and (3) Mary Jane Fate, of the Koyukon Athabascan village of Rampart, who-- (A) was the first woman to chair the Alaska Federation of Natives; (B) was a founding member of the North American Indian Women's Association; and (C) was an advocate for settlement of Indigenous land claims in Alaska; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have succeeded as judges, attorneys, and legal advocates, including-- (1) Eliza ``Lyda'' Conley, a Wyandot-American lawyer and the first Native woman admitted to argue a case before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1909; and (2) Emma Kailikapiolono Metcalf Beckley Nakuina, a Native Hawaiian who served as the first female judge in Hawaii; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women are dedicated public servants, holding important positions in the Federal judicial branch, the Federal executive branch, State governments, and local governments; Whereas American Indian and Alaska Native women have served as remarkable Tribal councilwomen, Tribal court judges, and Tribal leaders, including Wilma Mankiller, who-- (1) was the first woman elected to serve as Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation; (2) fought for Tribal self-determination and the improvement of the community infrastructure of her Tribe; and (3) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2022 quarter honoring her legacy of leadership for Native people and women; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have also led Native peoples through notable acts of public service, including-- (1) Kaahumanu, who was the first Native Hawaiian woman to serve as regent of the Kingdom of Hawaii; and (2) Polly Cooper, of the Oneida Indian Nation, who-- (A) walked from central New York to Valley Forge as part of a relief mission to provide food for the Army led by General George Washington during the American Revolutionary War; and (B) was recognized for her courage and generosity by Martha Washington; Whereas the United States should continue to invest in the future of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women to address the barriers those women face, including-- (1) access to justice; (2) access to health care; and (3) opportunities for educational and economic advancement; and Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women are the life givers, the culture bearers, and the caretakers of Native peoples who have made precious contributions, enriching the lives of all people of the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) celebrates and honors the successes of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women and the contributions those women have made and continue to make to the United States; and (2) recognizes the importance of providing for the safety, and upholding the interests of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1101-2 | null | 6,110 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | Mr. THUNE (for Ms.MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Daines, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Hickenlooper, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Kelly, Mr. King, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Markey, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Padilla, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Rounds, Ms. Smith, Mr. Tester, Ms. Warren, and Ms. Hirono)) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 148 Whereas the United States celebrates National Women's History Month every March to recognize and honor the achievements of women throughout the history of the United States; Whereas an estimated 4,718,255 American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women live in the United States; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women-- (1) have helped shape the history of their communities, Tribes, and the United States; (2) have fought to defend and protect the sovereign rights of Native Nations; and (3) have demonstrated resilience and courage in the face of a history of threatened existence, constant removals, and relocations; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women contribute to their communities, Tribes, and the United States through military service, public service, and work in many industries, including business, education, science, medicine, literature, and fine arts, including Pablita ``Tse Tsan'' Velarde, a Santa Clara Pueblo artist and painter whose art work depicted traditional Pueblo life and preserved Pueblo stories and knowledge, and whose paintings were commissioned for display at Bandelier National Monument; Whereas, as of 2023, more than 4,400 American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women bravely serve as members of the United States Armed Forces; Whereas, as of 2023, more than 20,800 American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women are veterans who have made lasting contributions to the United States military; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women broke down historical gender barriers to enlistment in the military, including-- (1) Laura Beltz Wright, an Inupiat Eskimo sharpshooter of the Alaska Territorial Guard during World War II; (2) Minnie Spotted Wolf of the Blackfeet Tribe, the first Native American woman to enlist in the United States Marine Corps in 1943; and (3) Marcella LeBeau of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, a decorated veteran who served as an Army combat nurse during World War II and received the French Legion of Honour for her bravery and service; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have made the ultimate sacrifice for the United States, including Lori Ann Piestewa, a member of the Hopi Tribe who was the first Native American woman to be killed in action while serving on foreign soil and the first woman in the United States military to be killed in the Iraq War in 2003; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have contributed to the economic development of Native Nations and the United States as a whole, including Elouise Cobell of the Blackfeet Tribe, a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, who-- (1) served as the treasurer of the Blackfeet Tribe; (2) founded the first Tribal-owned national bank; and (3) led the fight against Federal mismanagement of funds held in trust for more than 500,000 Native Americans; Whereas, as of 2020, American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women own an estimated 161,500 businesses; Whereas, as of 2020, Native women-owned businesses employ more than 61,000 workers and generate over $11,000,000,000 in revenues; Whereas American Indian and Alaska Native women have opened an average of more than 17 new businesses each day since 2007; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have made significant contributions to the fields of medicine and health, including-- (1) Susan La Flesche Picotte of the Omaha Tribe, who is widely acknowledged as the first Native American to earn a medical degree; and (2) Annie Dodge Wauneka of the Navajo Nation, who-- (A) advocated for better public health, education, and living conditions on the Navajo Nation leading to her becoming 1 of the first female council members for the Navajo Nation in 1951; and (B) was the first Native American to receive a Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1963; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have contributed to important scientific advancements, including-- (1) Floy Agnes Lee of the Santa Clara Pueblo, who-- (A) worked on the Manhattan Project during World War II; and (B) pioneered research on radiation biology and cancer; (2) Native Hawaiian Isabella Kauakea Yau Yung Aiona Abbott, who-- (A) was the first woman on the biological sciences faculty at Stanford University; and (B) in 1997, was awarded the Gilbert Morgan Smith medal, the highest award in marine botany from the National Academy of Sciences; and (3) Mary Golda Ross of the Cherokee Nation, who-- (A) is considered the first Native American engineer of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; (B) helped develop spacecrafts for the Gemini and Apollo space programs; and (C) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2019 1 dollar coin honoring Native Americans and their contributions; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have achieved distinctive honors in the art of dance, including Maria Tallchief or Wa-Xthe-Thon-ba of the Osage Nation, who-- (1) was the first major prima ballerina of the United States and was a recipient of a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Kennedy Center; and (2) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2023 1 dollar coin with her sister Marjorie Tallchief of the Osage Nation, Yvonne Chouteau of the Shawnee Tribe, Rosella Hightower of the Choctaw Nation, and Moscelyne Larkin of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma and the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, collectively known as the ``Five Moons'', for the legacy they left on ballet; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have accomplished notable literary achievements, including Northern Paiute author Sarah Winnemucca Hopkins, who wrote and published 1 of the first Native American autobiographies in United States history in 1883; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have regularly led efforts to protect their traditional ways of life and to revitalize and maintain Native cultures and languages, including-- (1) Esther Martinez, a Tewa linguist and teacher who developed a Tewa dictionary and was credited with revitalizing the Tewa language; (2) Mary Kawena Pukui, a Native Hawaiian scholar who published more than 50 academic works and was considered the most noted Hawaiian translator of the 20th century; (3) Katie John, an Ahtna Athabascan of Mentasta Lake, who was the lead plaintiff in lawsuits that strengthened Native subsistence fishing rights in Alaska and who helped create the alphabet for the Ahtna language; and (4) Edith Kenao Kanaka'ole, a Native Hawaiian language and cultural practitioner who-- (A) founded her own hula school, Halau o Kekuhi; (B) helped develop some of the first courses in Hawaiian language and culture for public schools and colleges; and (C) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2023 quarter honoring her significant contributions and accomplishments perpetuating Native Hawaiian culture and arts; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have excelled in athletic competition and created opportunities for other female athletes within their sport, including Rell Kapoliokaehukai Sunn, who-- (1) was ranked as longboard surfing champion of the world; and (2) co-founded the Women's Professional Surfing Association in 1975, the first professional surfing tour for women; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have played a vital role in advancing civil rights, protecting human rights, advocating for land rights, and safeguarding the environment, including-- (1) Elizabeth Wanamaker Peratrovich, Tlingit, a member of the Lukaax.adi clan in the Raven moiety with the Tlingit name of Kaaxgal.aat, who-- (A) helped secure the passage of House Bill 14, commonly known as the Anti-Discrimination Act of 1945 (H.B. 14, Laws of Alaska. 17th Regular Session, Territorial Legislature. Feb. 16, 1945), in the Alaska Territorial Legislature, the first anti-discrimination law in the United States; and (B) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2020 1 dollar coin honoring Native Americans and their contributions; (2) Zitkala-Sa, a Yankton Dakota writer and advocate, whose work during the early 20th century helped advance the citizenship, voting, and land rights of Native Americans; and (3) Mary Jane Fate, of the Koyukon Athabascan village of Rampart, who-- (A) was the first woman to chair the Alaska Federation of Natives; (B) was a founding member of the North American Indian Women's Association; and (C) was an advocate for settlement of Indigenous land claims in Alaska; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have succeeded as judges, attorneys, and legal advocates, including-- (1) Eliza ``Lyda'' Conley, a Wyandot-American lawyer and the first Native woman admitted to argue a case before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1909; and (2) Emma Kailikapiolono Metcalf Beckley Nakuina, a Native Hawaiian who served as the first female judge in Hawaii; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women are dedicated public servants, holding important positions in the Federal judicial branch, the Federal executive branch, State governments, and local governments; Whereas American Indian and Alaska Native women have served as remarkable Tribal councilwomen, Tribal court judges, and Tribal leaders, including Wilma Mankiller, who-- (1) was the first woman elected to serve as Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation; (2) fought for Tribal self-determination and the improvement of the community infrastructure of her Tribe; and (3) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2022 quarter honoring her legacy of leadership for Native people and women; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have also led Native peoples through notable acts of public service, including-- (1) Kaahumanu, who was the first Native Hawaiian woman to serve as regent of the Kingdom of Hawaii; and (2) Polly Cooper, of the Oneida Indian Nation, who-- (A) walked from central New York to Valley Forge as part of a relief mission to provide food for the Army led by General George Washington during the American Revolutionary War; and (B) was recognized for her courage and generosity by Martha Washington; Whereas the United States should continue to invest in the future of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women to address the barriers those women face, including-- (1) access to justice; (2) access to health care; and (3) opportunities for educational and economic advancement; and Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women are the life givers, the culture bearers, and the caretakers of Native peoples who have made precious contributions, enriching the lives of all people of the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) celebrates and honors the successes of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women and the contributions those women have made and continue to make to the United States; and (2) recognizes the importance of providing for the safety, and upholding the interests of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1101-2 | null | 6,111 |
formal | safeguarding | null | transphobic | Mr. THUNE (for Ms.MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Daines, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Hickenlooper, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Kelly, Mr. King, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Markey, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Padilla, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Rounds, Ms. Smith, Mr. Tester, Ms. Warren, and Ms. Hirono)) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 148 Whereas the United States celebrates National Women's History Month every March to recognize and honor the achievements of women throughout the history of the United States; Whereas an estimated 4,718,255 American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women live in the United States; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women-- (1) have helped shape the history of their communities, Tribes, and the United States; (2) have fought to defend and protect the sovereign rights of Native Nations; and (3) have demonstrated resilience and courage in the face of a history of threatened existence, constant removals, and relocations; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women contribute to their communities, Tribes, and the United States through military service, public service, and work in many industries, including business, education, science, medicine, literature, and fine arts, including Pablita ``Tse Tsan'' Velarde, a Santa Clara Pueblo artist and painter whose art work depicted traditional Pueblo life and preserved Pueblo stories and knowledge, and whose paintings were commissioned for display at Bandelier National Monument; Whereas, as of 2023, more than 4,400 American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women bravely serve as members of the United States Armed Forces; Whereas, as of 2023, more than 20,800 American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women are veterans who have made lasting contributions to the United States military; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women broke down historical gender barriers to enlistment in the military, including-- (1) Laura Beltz Wright, an Inupiat Eskimo sharpshooter of the Alaska Territorial Guard during World War II; (2) Minnie Spotted Wolf of the Blackfeet Tribe, the first Native American woman to enlist in the United States Marine Corps in 1943; and (3) Marcella LeBeau of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, a decorated veteran who served as an Army combat nurse during World War II and received the French Legion of Honour for her bravery and service; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have made the ultimate sacrifice for the United States, including Lori Ann Piestewa, a member of the Hopi Tribe who was the first Native American woman to be killed in action while serving on foreign soil and the first woman in the United States military to be killed in the Iraq War in 2003; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have contributed to the economic development of Native Nations and the United States as a whole, including Elouise Cobell of the Blackfeet Tribe, a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, who-- (1) served as the treasurer of the Blackfeet Tribe; (2) founded the first Tribal-owned national bank; and (3) led the fight against Federal mismanagement of funds held in trust for more than 500,000 Native Americans; Whereas, as of 2020, American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women own an estimated 161,500 businesses; Whereas, as of 2020, Native women-owned businesses employ more than 61,000 workers and generate over $11,000,000,000 in revenues; Whereas American Indian and Alaska Native women have opened an average of more than 17 new businesses each day since 2007; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have made significant contributions to the fields of medicine and health, including-- (1) Susan La Flesche Picotte of the Omaha Tribe, who is widely acknowledged as the first Native American to earn a medical degree; and (2) Annie Dodge Wauneka of the Navajo Nation, who-- (A) advocated for better public health, education, and living conditions on the Navajo Nation leading to her becoming 1 of the first female council members for the Navajo Nation in 1951; and (B) was the first Native American to receive a Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1963; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have contributed to important scientific advancements, including-- (1) Floy Agnes Lee of the Santa Clara Pueblo, who-- (A) worked on the Manhattan Project during World War II; and (B) pioneered research on radiation biology and cancer; (2) Native Hawaiian Isabella Kauakea Yau Yung Aiona Abbott, who-- (A) was the first woman on the biological sciences faculty at Stanford University; and (B) in 1997, was awarded the Gilbert Morgan Smith medal, the highest award in marine botany from the National Academy of Sciences; and (3) Mary Golda Ross of the Cherokee Nation, who-- (A) is considered the first Native American engineer of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; (B) helped develop spacecrafts for the Gemini and Apollo space programs; and (C) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2019 1 dollar coin honoring Native Americans and their contributions; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have achieved distinctive honors in the art of dance, including Maria Tallchief or Wa-Xthe-Thon-ba of the Osage Nation, who-- (1) was the first major prima ballerina of the United States and was a recipient of a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Kennedy Center; and (2) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2023 1 dollar coin with her sister Marjorie Tallchief of the Osage Nation, Yvonne Chouteau of the Shawnee Tribe, Rosella Hightower of the Choctaw Nation, and Moscelyne Larkin of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma and the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, collectively known as the ``Five Moons'', for the legacy they left on ballet; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have accomplished notable literary achievements, including Northern Paiute author Sarah Winnemucca Hopkins, who wrote and published 1 of the first Native American autobiographies in United States history in 1883; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have regularly led efforts to protect their traditional ways of life and to revitalize and maintain Native cultures and languages, including-- (1) Esther Martinez, a Tewa linguist and teacher who developed a Tewa dictionary and was credited with revitalizing the Tewa language; (2) Mary Kawena Pukui, a Native Hawaiian scholar who published more than 50 academic works and was considered the most noted Hawaiian translator of the 20th century; (3) Katie John, an Ahtna Athabascan of Mentasta Lake, who was the lead plaintiff in lawsuits that strengthened Native subsistence fishing rights in Alaska and who helped create the alphabet for the Ahtna language; and (4) Edith Kenao Kanaka'ole, a Native Hawaiian language and cultural practitioner who-- (A) founded her own hula school, Halau o Kekuhi; (B) helped develop some of the first courses in Hawaiian language and culture for public schools and colleges; and (C) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2023 quarter honoring her significant contributions and accomplishments perpetuating Native Hawaiian culture and arts; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have excelled in athletic competition and created opportunities for other female athletes within their sport, including Rell Kapoliokaehukai Sunn, who-- (1) was ranked as longboard surfing champion of the world; and (2) co-founded the Women's Professional Surfing Association in 1975, the first professional surfing tour for women; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have played a vital role in advancing civil rights, protecting human rights, advocating for land rights, and safeguarding the environment, including-- (1) Elizabeth Wanamaker Peratrovich, Tlingit, a member of the Lukaax.adi clan in the Raven moiety with the Tlingit name of Kaaxgal.aat, who-- (A) helped secure the passage of House Bill 14, commonly known as the Anti-Discrimination Act of 1945 (H.B. 14, Laws of Alaska. 17th Regular Session, Territorial Legislature. Feb. 16, 1945), in the Alaska Territorial Legislature, the first anti-discrimination law in the United States; and (B) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2020 1 dollar coin honoring Native Americans and their contributions; (2) Zitkala-Sa, a Yankton Dakota writer and advocate, whose work during the early 20th century helped advance the citizenship, voting, and land rights of Native Americans; and (3) Mary Jane Fate, of the Koyukon Athabascan village of Rampart, who-- (A) was the first woman to chair the Alaska Federation of Natives; (B) was a founding member of the North American Indian Women's Association; and (C) was an advocate for settlement of Indigenous land claims in Alaska; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have succeeded as judges, attorneys, and legal advocates, including-- (1) Eliza ``Lyda'' Conley, a Wyandot-American lawyer and the first Native woman admitted to argue a case before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1909; and (2) Emma Kailikapiolono Metcalf Beckley Nakuina, a Native Hawaiian who served as the first female judge in Hawaii; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women are dedicated public servants, holding important positions in the Federal judicial branch, the Federal executive branch, State governments, and local governments; Whereas American Indian and Alaska Native women have served as remarkable Tribal councilwomen, Tribal court judges, and Tribal leaders, including Wilma Mankiller, who-- (1) was the first woman elected to serve as Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation; (2) fought for Tribal self-determination and the improvement of the community infrastructure of her Tribe; and (3) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2022 quarter honoring her legacy of leadership for Native people and women; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have also led Native peoples through notable acts of public service, including-- (1) Kaahumanu, who was the first Native Hawaiian woman to serve as regent of the Kingdom of Hawaii; and (2) Polly Cooper, of the Oneida Indian Nation, who-- (A) walked from central New York to Valley Forge as part of a relief mission to provide food for the Army led by General George Washington during the American Revolutionary War; and (B) was recognized for her courage and generosity by Martha Washington; Whereas the United States should continue to invest in the future of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women to address the barriers those women face, including-- (1) access to justice; (2) access to health care; and (3) opportunities for educational and economic advancement; and Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women are the life givers, the culture bearers, and the caretakers of Native peoples who have made precious contributions, enriching the lives of all people of the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) celebrates and honors the successes of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women and the contributions those women have made and continue to make to the United States; and (2) recognizes the importance of providing for the safety, and upholding the interests of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1101-2 | null | 6,112 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHATZ (for himself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Markey, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Casey, Mr. Warner, Mr. Lujan, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Wyden, and Ms. Klobuchar) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 147 Whereas the United States was founded on the principle of freedom of the press enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which declares that ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .''; Whereas an informed citizenry depends on accurate and unbiased news reporting to inform the judgment of the people; Whereas a robust, diverse, and sustainable local news presence leads to civic engagement and the buttressing of democratic norms and practices; Whereas the absence of local news outlets and investigative reporting allows local government corruption and corporate malfeasance to go unchecked; Whereas local journalists help combat disinformation by using their community knowledge and connections to debunk fraudulent or misleading content; Whereas local cable franchises routinely provide for public educational and government access channels on their systems, and those channels-- (1) offer vital local civic programming that informs communities; (2) provide news and information not often available on other local broadcast channels or cable; (3) supplement local journalism; and (4) at times, are the only source for local news; Whereas the people of the United States trust local news sources by a 2-to-1 margin; Whereas, according to recent research-- (1) the United States has lost more than 2,500 local print outlets since 2005, which accounts for \1/4\ of all local print outlets, and is on track to lose \1/3\ by 2025; (2) an average of more than 2 local print outlets are being shuttered every week in the United States; (3) more than 200 of the 3,143 counties and county equivalents in the United States have no local newspaper at all, creating a news shortage for the 4,000,000 residents of those areas; (4) of the remaining counties in the United States, more than \1/2\ have only 1 newspaper to cover populations ranging from fewer than 1,000 to more than 1,000,000 residents and \2/3\ have no daily newspaper, with fewer than 100 of these counties having a digital substitute; (5) more than \1/2\ of all newspapers in the United States have changed owners during the past decade, and, in 2020, the 25 largest newspaper ownership companies owned \1/3\ of all daily newspapers, including 70 percent of newspapers that still circulate daily; (6) of the surviving 6,700 newspapers in the United States, not fewer than 1,000 qualify as ``ghost newspapers'', or newspapers with reporting and photography staffs that are so significantly reduced that they can no longer provide much of the breaking news or public service journalism that once informed readers about vital issues in their communities; and (7) rural counties are among the counties most deeply impacted by the loss of local reporting, as more than 500 of the 2,500 newspapers that have closed or merged since 2005 are in rural counties; Whereas, while overall employment in newspaper, television, radio, and digital newsrooms dropped by roughly 26 percent, or 30,000 jobs, between 2008 and 2020, the plunge in newspaper newsrooms alone was much worse at 57 percent, or 40,000 jobs, during that same time period; Whereas the number of news employees in the radio broadcasting industry dropped by 26 percent between 2008 and 2020; Whereas digital native publications have laid off hundreds of journalists, and many of those publications have shuttered during the last year; Whereas beat reporting, meaning the day-to-day coverage of a particular field that allows a journalist to develop expertise and cultivate sources, has ceased to be a viable career for would-be journalists due to the decimation of newsroom budgets; Whereas requests submitted under section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as ``Freedom of Information Act requests''), by local newspapers to local, State, and Federal agencies fell by nearly 50 percent between 2005 and 2010, demonstrating a significant drop in the extent to which local reporters request government records; Whereas newspapers alone lost more than $39,800,000,000 in advertising revenue between 2005 and 2020; Whereas the sponsorship revenue of all-news radio stations dropped by 25 percent between 2019 and 2021; Whereas there remains a significant gender disparity in newsroom employment, with women comprising approximately \1/ 3\ of staff who are 30 years of age or older; Whereas women who are local television news anchors and reporters, especially women of color, are often subject to harassment and stalking; Whereas, across the United States, there are 195 newspapers published by and for Black readers, and, in recent years, many of those newspapers have seen-- (1) significant losses in advertising revenue as small businesses in their communities were forced to close; and (2) declines in circulation due to the closures of businesses in their communities; Whereas the number of Black journalists working at daily newspapers dropped by 40 percent between 1997 and 2014, more than for any other demographic group; Whereas the number of print media sources published by and for American Indian readers has shrunk dramatically in recent years, from 700 media outlets in 1998 to only 200 in 2018; Whereas Tribally-owned news outlets are often dependent on Tribal governments for funding, but most of those outlets lack the policy structure necessary to fully protect journalistic independence; Whereas a 2018 survey by the Native American Journalists Association found that 83 percent of respondents believed that Native press coverage of Tribal government affairs was sometimes, frequently, or always censored; Whereas there are more than 550 Latino news media outlets in the United States, and those news media outlets rely primarily on a declining advertising revenue base; Whereas the lack of local news impacts communities that speak languages other than English, which are often excluded from national media coverage; Whereas more than 100 local newsrooms have closed during the COVID-19 pandemic; Whereas the COVID-19 pandemic took a substantial economic toll on the local news industry, contributing to budget cuts, staff layoffs, and scores of newsroom closures, from which the industry has yet to fully recover; Whereas PEN America proposed ``a major reimagining of the local news space'' in its 2019 call-to-action report, ``Losing the News: The Decimation of Local Journalism and the Search for Solutions'', and called on society and the Federal Government to urgently address the alarming demise of local journalism; and Whereas, half a century ago, Congress perceived that the commercial television industry would not independently provide the educational and public interest broadcasting that was appropriate and necessary for the country, and, informed by an independent report prepared by the Carnegie Commission on Educational Television, created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which has since ensured that radio and television include public interest educational and reporting programs using annually appropriated funds: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates April 2023 as ``Preserving and Protecting Local News Month''; (2) affirms that local news serves an essential function in the democracy of the United States; (3) recognizes local news as a public good; and (4) acknowledges the valuable contributions of local journalism towards the maintenance of healthy and vibrant communities. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1101 | null | 6,113 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CASEY (for himself, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Markey, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Fetterman, Ms. Smith, Ms. Warren, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Lujan, and Mr. Brown) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: S. Res. 153 Whereas there is a growing need on the part of families for care, from childcare to support for older adults and individuals with chronic illnesses or disabilities; Whereas childcare workers provide the essential service of taking care of a child's basic needs while fostering a child's early emotional, social, and intellectual development; Whereas direct care workers allow older adults, individuals with disabilities, and children with complex medical needs to remain in their homes and communities and live healthy, independent, and dignified lives by providing support with critical daily tasks, such as eating, dressing, and personal hygiene; Whereas investment in care workers is vital to labor force participation and a strong economy; Whereas care workers give family caregivers the assurance that their homes are being looked after and that their children, parents, and loved ones are in the hands of professionals; Whereas care work is an industry that particularly benefits women, who account for the majority of the care workforce, and that allows other women to participate in the labor force; Whereas access to childcare and home and community-based care helps families boost their economic stability by working increased hours, taking fewer days off, and pursuing opportunities to advance their education and careers; Whereas, when families are forced out of the labor market due to caregiving responsibilities, they will experience diminished income, access to benefits, and retirement savings over their lifetimes; Whereas children who receive high-quality childcare are healthier, more likely to graduate from college, and more likely to have higher incomes; Whereas substandard wages and poor working conditions continue to fuel shortages and turnover in the care industry; Whereas the median annual earnings for full-time childcare workers and home care workers is less than $30,000, and, as a result, nearly 1 in 6 home care workers lives in poverty, and 1 in 3 childcare workers is experiencing food insecurity; Whereas COVID-19 both heightened the existing challenges for, and placed new stress on, care workers, leading to burnout and exhaustion; Whereas the demand for home and community-based care services is growing, because the population of adults who are 65 and older will nearly double by 2050, and 10,000 individuals are aging into retirement per day; Whereas 88 percent of aging adults prefer to receive long- term supports and services in home and community-based settings; Whereas, across the United States, approximately 656,000 aging individuals and individuals with disabilities are on waiting lists to access home and community-based services through Medicaid; Whereas home care jobs are the jobs of the future, because the home care workforce is projected to add more new jobs than any other single occupation in the United States and will add more than 1,000,000 new jobs from 2020 to 2030; Whereas care jobs are the jobs of the future, because these jobs cannot be automated or outsourced; Whereas turnover and shortages in the care workforce are costly to the economy, because they lead to higher costs for taxpayer-supported programs and industry employers that need to keep hiring and training new workers; Whereas large-scale labor force exits and work disruptions due to childcare needs annually cost the economy an estimated $122,000,000,000 in lost income, productivity, and tax revenue; Whereas investing in care infrastructure will lead to fewer staffing shortages and higher productivity, while ensuring a more robust and stable pipeline of workers from which businesses can recruit; and Whereas investing in direct care infrastructure specifically will result in savings, because it costs $26,000 per individual per year to receive care in a home in contrast to $90,000 per individual per year in a congregate setting: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) expresses support for the designation of April 2023 as ``Care Worker Recognition Month''; (2) recognizes the roles and the contributions of home care workers in the United States in providing the care necessary for older adults and disabled individuals to live independently and in dignity; (3) recognizes the role and contributions of early educators and childcare workers in the United States in providing a nurturing, enriching environment for children to grow and learn; (4) recognizes the roles and the contributions of care workers in the United States in enabling caregivers the opportunity to pursue educational attainment and to remain in or reenter the workforce; (5) recognizes that the care industry is crucial to economic growth; and (6) thanks and promotes the care worker profession. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1104-2 | null | 6,114 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. CASEY (for himself, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Markey, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Fetterman, Ms. Smith, Ms. Warren, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Lujan, and Mr. Brown) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: S. Res. 153 Whereas there is a growing need on the part of families for care, from childcare to support for older adults and individuals with chronic illnesses or disabilities; Whereas childcare workers provide the essential service of taking care of a child's basic needs while fostering a child's early emotional, social, and intellectual development; Whereas direct care workers allow older adults, individuals with disabilities, and children with complex medical needs to remain in their homes and communities and live healthy, independent, and dignified lives by providing support with critical daily tasks, such as eating, dressing, and personal hygiene; Whereas investment in care workers is vital to labor force participation and a strong economy; Whereas care workers give family caregivers the assurance that their homes are being looked after and that their children, parents, and loved ones are in the hands of professionals; Whereas care work is an industry that particularly benefits women, who account for the majority of the care workforce, and that allows other women to participate in the labor force; Whereas access to childcare and home and community-based care helps families boost their economic stability by working increased hours, taking fewer days off, and pursuing opportunities to advance their education and careers; Whereas, when families are forced out of the labor market due to caregiving responsibilities, they will experience diminished income, access to benefits, and retirement savings over their lifetimes; Whereas children who receive high-quality childcare are healthier, more likely to graduate from college, and more likely to have higher incomes; Whereas substandard wages and poor working conditions continue to fuel shortages and turnover in the care industry; Whereas the median annual earnings for full-time childcare workers and home care workers is less than $30,000, and, as a result, nearly 1 in 6 home care workers lives in poverty, and 1 in 3 childcare workers is experiencing food insecurity; Whereas COVID-19 both heightened the existing challenges for, and placed new stress on, care workers, leading to burnout and exhaustion; Whereas the demand for home and community-based care services is growing, because the population of adults who are 65 and older will nearly double by 2050, and 10,000 individuals are aging into retirement per day; Whereas 88 percent of aging adults prefer to receive long- term supports and services in home and community-based settings; Whereas, across the United States, approximately 656,000 aging individuals and individuals with disabilities are on waiting lists to access home and community-based services through Medicaid; Whereas home care jobs are the jobs of the future, because the home care workforce is projected to add more new jobs than any other single occupation in the United States and will add more than 1,000,000 new jobs from 2020 to 2030; Whereas care jobs are the jobs of the future, because these jobs cannot be automated or outsourced; Whereas turnover and shortages in the care workforce are costly to the economy, because they lead to higher costs for taxpayer-supported programs and industry employers that need to keep hiring and training new workers; Whereas large-scale labor force exits and work disruptions due to childcare needs annually cost the economy an estimated $122,000,000,000 in lost income, productivity, and tax revenue; Whereas investing in care infrastructure will lead to fewer staffing shortages and higher productivity, while ensuring a more robust and stable pipeline of workers from which businesses can recruit; and Whereas investing in direct care infrastructure specifically will result in savings, because it costs $26,000 per individual per year to receive care in a home in contrast to $90,000 per individual per year in a congregate setting: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) expresses support for the designation of April 2023 as ``Care Worker Recognition Month''; (2) recognizes the roles and the contributions of home care workers in the United States in providing the care necessary for older adults and disabled individuals to live independently and in dignity; (3) recognizes the role and contributions of early educators and childcare workers in the United States in providing a nurturing, enriching environment for children to grow and learn; (4) recognizes the roles and the contributions of care workers in the United States in enabling caregivers the opportunity to pursue educational attainment and to remain in or reenter the workforce; (5) recognizes that the care industry is crucial to economic growth; and (6) thanks and promotes the care worker profession. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1104-2 | null | 6,115 |
formal | butterflies | null | homophobic | Ms. HIRONO (for herself and Mr. Braun) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 152 Whereas native plants are indigenous species that have evolved and occur naturally in a particular region, ecosystem, and habitat; Whereas there are more than 17,000 native plant species in the United States, which include trees, shrubs, vines, grasses, and wildflowers; Whereas native plants help prevent flooding, drought, and erosion and can help restore damaged ecosystems; Whereas native plants provide shelter as well as nectar, pollen, and seeds that serve as food for native butterflies, insects, birds, and other wildlife in ways that non-native plants cannot; Whereas more than 200 of the native plant species in the United States are estimated to have been lost since the early 19th century; Whereas habitat loss and degradation, extreme weather events, and invasive species have contributed to the decline of native plants in the United States; and Whereas native plants are essential components of resilient ecosystems and the natural heritage of the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates April 2023 as ``National Native Plant Month''; and (2) recognizes the benefits of native plants to the environment and economy of the United States. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1104 | null | 6,116 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. YOUNG (for himself, Mr. Carper, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Cardin, and Mr. Cornyn) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Finance: S. Res. 155 Whereas over half of the world's population, totaling more than 5,000,000,000 people, use the internet; Whereas the digital economy encompasses the economic and social activity from billions of online connections among people, businesses, devices, and data as a result of the internet, mobile technology, and the internet of things; Whereas the Bureau of Economic Analysis found that the digital economy contributed nearly 10.2 percent of United States gross domestic product and supported 7,800,000 United States jobs in 2020; Whereas the technology-commerce ecosystem added 1,400,000 jobs between 2017 and 2021, and served as the main job- creating sector in 40 States; Whereas United States jobs supported by the digital economy have sustained annual wage growth at a rate of 5.9 percent since 2010, as compared to a 4.2 percent for all jobs; Whereas, in 2020, United States exports of digital services surpassed $520,000,000,000, accounting for more than half of all United States services exports and generating a digital services trade surplus for the United States of $214,000,000,000; Whereas digital trade bolsters the digital economy by enabling the sale of goods on the internet and the supply of online services across borders and depends on the free flow of data across borders to promote commerce, manufacturing, and innovation; Whereas digital trade has become increasingly vital to United States workers and businesses of all sizes, including the countless small and medium-sized enterprises that use digital technology, data flows, and e-commerce to export goods and services across the world; Whereas digital trade has advanced entrepreneurship opportunities for women, people of color, and individuals from otherwise underrepresented backgrounds and enabled the formation of innovative start- ups; Whereas international supply chains are becoming increasingly digitized and data driven and businesses in a variety of industries, such as construction, healthcare, transportation, and aerospace, invested heavily in digital supply chain technologies in 2020; Whereas United States Trade Representative Katherine Tai said, ``[T]here is no bright line separating digital trade from the digital economy--or the `traditional' economy for that matter. Nearly every aspect of our economy has been digitized to some degree.''; Whereas industries outside of the technology sector, such as manufacturing and agriculture, are integrating digital technology into their businesses in order to increase efficiency, improve safety, reach new customers, and remain globally competitive; Whereas the increasing reliance on digital technologies has modernized legacy processes, accelerated workflows, increased access to information and services, and strengthened security in a variety of industries, leading to better health, environmental, and safety outcomes; Whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has led to increased uptake and reliance on digital technologies, data flows, and e- commerce; Whereas 90 percent of adults in the United States say that the internet has been essential or important for them personally during the COVID-19 pandemic; Whereas United States families, workers, and business owners have seen how vital access to the internet has been to daily life, as work, education, medicine, and communication with family and friends have shifted increasingly online; Whereas many individuals and families, especially in rural and Tribal communities, struggle to participate in the digital economy because of a lack of access to a reliable and affordable internet connection; Whereas new developments in technology must be deployed with consideration to the unique access challenges of rural, urban underserved, and vulnerable communities; Whereas digital trade has the power to help level the playing field and uplift those in traditionally unrepresented or underrepresented communities; Whereas countries have negotiated international rules governing digital trade in various bilateral and plurilateral agreements, but those rules remain fragmented, and no multilateral agreement on digital trade exists within the World Trade Organization; Whereas the United States, through free trade agreements or other digital agreements, has been a leader in developing a set of rules and standards on digital governance and e- commerce that has helped allies and partners of the United States unlock the full economic and social potential of digital trade; Whereas Congress recognizes the need for agreements on digital trade, as indicated by its support for a robust digital trade chapter in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement; Whereas other countries are operating under their own digital rules, some of which are contrary to democratic values shared by the United States and many allies and partners of the United States; Whereas those countries are attempting to advance their own digital rules on a global scale; Whereas examples of the plethora of nontariff barriers to digital trade that have emerged around the globe include-- (1) overly restrictive data localization requirements and limitations on cross border data flows that do not achieve legitimate public policy objectives; (2) intellectual property rights infringement; (3) policies that make market access contingent on forced technology transfers or voluntary transfers subject to coercive terms; (4) web filtering; (5) economic espionage; (6) cybercrime exposure; and (7) government-directed theft of trade secrets; Whereas certain countries are pursuing or have implemented digital policies that unfairly discriminate against innovative United States technology companies and United States workers that create and deliver digital products and services; Whereas the Government of the People's Republic of China is currently advancing a model for digital governance and the digital economy domestically and abroad through its Digital Silk Road Initiative that permits censorship, surveillance, human and worker rights abuses, forced technology transfers, and data flow restrictions at the expense of human and worker rights, privacy, the free flow of data, and an open internet; Whereas the 2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices of the Department of State highlighted significant human rights issues committed by the People's Republic of China in the digital realm, including ``arbitrary interference with privacy; pervasive and intrusive technical surveillance and monitoring; serious restrictions on free expression, the press, and the internet, including physical attacks on and criminal prosecution of journalists, lawyers, writers, bloggers, dissidents, petitioners, and others as well as their family members, and censorship and site blocking''; Whereas the United States discourages digital authoritarianism, including practices that undermine human and worker rights and result in other social and economic coercion; Whereas allies and trading partners of the United States in the Indo-Pacific region have urged the United States to deepen economic engagement in the region by negotiating rules on digital trade and technology standards; Whereas the digital economy has provided new opportunities for economic development, entrepreneurship, and growth in developing countries around the world; Whereas negotiating strong digital trade principles and commitments with allies and partners across the globe enables the United States to unite like-minded economies around common standards and ensure that principles of democracy, rule of law, freedom of speech, human and worker rights, privacy, and a free and open internet are at the very core of digital governance; Whereas United States leadership and substantive engagement is necessary to ensure that global digital rules reflect United States values so that workers are treated fairly, small businesses can compete and win in the global economy, and consumers are guaranteed the right to privacy and security; Whereas the United States supports rules that reduce digital trade barriers, promote free expression and the free flow of information, enhance privacy protections, protect sensitive information, defend human and worker rights, prohibit forced technology transfer, and promote digitally enabled commerce; and Whereas the United States supports efforts to cooperate with allies and trading partners to mitigate the risks of cyberattacks, address potentially illegal or deceptive business activities online, promote financial inclusion and digital workforce skills, and develop rules to govern the use of artificial intelligence and other emerging and future technologies: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that-- (1) the United States should negotiate strong, inclusive, forward-looking, and enforceable rules on digital trade and the digital economy with like-minded countries as part of a broader trade and economic strategy to address digital barriers and ensure that the United States values of democracy, rule of law, freedom of speech, human and worker rights, privacy, and a free and open internet are at the very core of the digital world and advanced technology; (2) in conducting such negotiations, the United States must-- (A) pursue digital trade rules that-- (i) serve the best interests of workers, consumers, and small and medium-sized enterprises; (ii) empower United States workers; (iii) fuel wage growth; and (iv) lead to materially positive economic outcomes for all people in the United States; (B) ensure that any future agreement prevents the adoption of non-democratic, coercive, or overly restrictive policies that would be obstacles to a free and open internet and harm the ability of the e-commerce marketplace to continue to grow and thrive; (C) coordinate sufficient trade-related assistance to ensure that developing countries can improve their capacity and benefit from increased digital trade; and (D) consult closely with all relevant stakeholders, including workers, consumers, small and medium-sized enterprises, civil society groups, and human rights advocates; and (3) with respect to any negotiations for an agreement facilitating digital trade, the United States Trade Representative and the heads of other relevant Federal agencies must-- (A) consult closely and on a timely basis with the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives about the substance of those negotiations and the requisite legal authority to bind the United States to any such agreement; (B) keep both committees fully apprised of those negotiations; and (C) provide to those committees, including staff with appropriate security clearances, adequate access to the text of the negotiating proposal of the United States before presenting the proposal in the negotiations. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1105-2 | null | 6,117 |
formal | property rights | null | racist | Mr. YOUNG (for himself, Mr. Carper, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Cardin, and Mr. Cornyn) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Finance: S. Res. 155 Whereas over half of the world's population, totaling more than 5,000,000,000 people, use the internet; Whereas the digital economy encompasses the economic and social activity from billions of online connections among people, businesses, devices, and data as a result of the internet, mobile technology, and the internet of things; Whereas the Bureau of Economic Analysis found that the digital economy contributed nearly 10.2 percent of United States gross domestic product and supported 7,800,000 United States jobs in 2020; Whereas the technology-commerce ecosystem added 1,400,000 jobs between 2017 and 2021, and served as the main job- creating sector in 40 States; Whereas United States jobs supported by the digital economy have sustained annual wage growth at a rate of 5.9 percent since 2010, as compared to a 4.2 percent for all jobs; Whereas, in 2020, United States exports of digital services surpassed $520,000,000,000, accounting for more than half of all United States services exports and generating a digital services trade surplus for the United States of $214,000,000,000; Whereas digital trade bolsters the digital economy by enabling the sale of goods on the internet and the supply of online services across borders and depends on the free flow of data across borders to promote commerce, manufacturing, and innovation; Whereas digital trade has become increasingly vital to United States workers and businesses of all sizes, including the countless small and medium-sized enterprises that use digital technology, data flows, and e-commerce to export goods and services across the world; Whereas digital trade has advanced entrepreneurship opportunities for women, people of color, and individuals from otherwise underrepresented backgrounds and enabled the formation of innovative start- ups; Whereas international supply chains are becoming increasingly digitized and data driven and businesses in a variety of industries, such as construction, healthcare, transportation, and aerospace, invested heavily in digital supply chain technologies in 2020; Whereas United States Trade Representative Katherine Tai said, ``[T]here is no bright line separating digital trade from the digital economy--or the `traditional' economy for that matter. Nearly every aspect of our economy has been digitized to some degree.''; Whereas industries outside of the technology sector, such as manufacturing and agriculture, are integrating digital technology into their businesses in order to increase efficiency, improve safety, reach new customers, and remain globally competitive; Whereas the increasing reliance on digital technologies has modernized legacy processes, accelerated workflows, increased access to information and services, and strengthened security in a variety of industries, leading to better health, environmental, and safety outcomes; Whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has led to increased uptake and reliance on digital technologies, data flows, and e- commerce; Whereas 90 percent of adults in the United States say that the internet has been essential or important for them personally during the COVID-19 pandemic; Whereas United States families, workers, and business owners have seen how vital access to the internet has been to daily life, as work, education, medicine, and communication with family and friends have shifted increasingly online; Whereas many individuals and families, especially in rural and Tribal communities, struggle to participate in the digital economy because of a lack of access to a reliable and affordable internet connection; Whereas new developments in technology must be deployed with consideration to the unique access challenges of rural, urban underserved, and vulnerable communities; Whereas digital trade has the power to help level the playing field and uplift those in traditionally unrepresented or underrepresented communities; Whereas countries have negotiated international rules governing digital trade in various bilateral and plurilateral agreements, but those rules remain fragmented, and no multilateral agreement on digital trade exists within the World Trade Organization; Whereas the United States, through free trade agreements or other digital agreements, has been a leader in developing a set of rules and standards on digital governance and e- commerce that has helped allies and partners of the United States unlock the full economic and social potential of digital trade; Whereas Congress recognizes the need for agreements on digital trade, as indicated by its support for a robust digital trade chapter in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement; Whereas other countries are operating under their own digital rules, some of which are contrary to democratic values shared by the United States and many allies and partners of the United States; Whereas those countries are attempting to advance their own digital rules on a global scale; Whereas examples of the plethora of nontariff barriers to digital trade that have emerged around the globe include-- (1) overly restrictive data localization requirements and limitations on cross border data flows that do not achieve legitimate public policy objectives; (2) intellectual property rights infringement; (3) policies that make market access contingent on forced technology transfers or voluntary transfers subject to coercive terms; (4) web filtering; (5) economic espionage; (6) cybercrime exposure; and (7) government-directed theft of trade secrets; Whereas certain countries are pursuing or have implemented digital policies that unfairly discriminate against innovative United States technology companies and United States workers that create and deliver digital products and services; Whereas the Government of the People's Republic of China is currently advancing a model for digital governance and the digital economy domestically and abroad through its Digital Silk Road Initiative that permits censorship, surveillance, human and worker rights abuses, forced technology transfers, and data flow restrictions at the expense of human and worker rights, privacy, the free flow of data, and an open internet; Whereas the 2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices of the Department of State highlighted significant human rights issues committed by the People's Republic of China in the digital realm, including ``arbitrary interference with privacy; pervasive and intrusive technical surveillance and monitoring; serious restrictions on free expression, the press, and the internet, including physical attacks on and criminal prosecution of journalists, lawyers, writers, bloggers, dissidents, petitioners, and others as well as their family members, and censorship and site blocking''; Whereas the United States discourages digital authoritarianism, including practices that undermine human and worker rights and result in other social and economic coercion; Whereas allies and trading partners of the United States in the Indo-Pacific region have urged the United States to deepen economic engagement in the region by negotiating rules on digital trade and technology standards; Whereas the digital economy has provided new opportunities for economic development, entrepreneurship, and growth in developing countries around the world; Whereas negotiating strong digital trade principles and commitments with allies and partners across the globe enables the United States to unite like-minded economies around common standards and ensure that principles of democracy, rule of law, freedom of speech, human and worker rights, privacy, and a free and open internet are at the very core of digital governance; Whereas United States leadership and substantive engagement is necessary to ensure that global digital rules reflect United States values so that workers are treated fairly, small businesses can compete and win in the global economy, and consumers are guaranteed the right to privacy and security; Whereas the United States supports rules that reduce digital trade barriers, promote free expression and the free flow of information, enhance privacy protections, protect sensitive information, defend human and worker rights, prohibit forced technology transfer, and promote digitally enabled commerce; and Whereas the United States supports efforts to cooperate with allies and trading partners to mitigate the risks of cyberattacks, address potentially illegal or deceptive business activities online, promote financial inclusion and digital workforce skills, and develop rules to govern the use of artificial intelligence and other emerging and future technologies: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that-- (1) the United States should negotiate strong, inclusive, forward-looking, and enforceable rules on digital trade and the digital economy with like-minded countries as part of a broader trade and economic strategy to address digital barriers and ensure that the United States values of democracy, rule of law, freedom of speech, human and worker rights, privacy, and a free and open internet are at the very core of the digital world and advanced technology; (2) in conducting such negotiations, the United States must-- (A) pursue digital trade rules that-- (i) serve the best interests of workers, consumers, and small and medium-sized enterprises; (ii) empower United States workers; (iii) fuel wage growth; and (iv) lead to materially positive economic outcomes for all people in the United States; (B) ensure that any future agreement prevents the adoption of non-democratic, coercive, or overly restrictive policies that would be obstacles to a free and open internet and harm the ability of the e-commerce marketplace to continue to grow and thrive; (C) coordinate sufficient trade-related assistance to ensure that developing countries can improve their capacity and benefit from increased digital trade; and (D) consult closely with all relevant stakeholders, including workers, consumers, small and medium-sized enterprises, civil society groups, and human rights advocates; and (3) with respect to any negotiations for an agreement facilitating digital trade, the United States Trade Representative and the heads of other relevant Federal agencies must-- (A) consult closely and on a timely basis with the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives about the substance of those negotiations and the requisite legal authority to bind the United States to any such agreement; (B) keep both committees fully apprised of those negotiations; and (C) provide to those committees, including staff with appropriate security clearances, adequate access to the text of the negotiating proposal of the United States before presenting the proposal in the negotiations. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1105-2 | null | 6,118 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. PETERS (for himself and Ms. Stabenow) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 156 Whereas United States citizen Paul Whelan is a resident of Novi, Michigan, and a veteran of the Marine Corps; Whereas, on December 22, 2018, Paul Whelan traveled to Moscow, Russia, for the wedding of a personal friend; Whereas, on December 28, 2018, the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation arrested Paul Whelan at the Metropol Hotel in Moscow and charged him with espionage; Whereas the Federal Security Service has never provided any evidence of supposed wrongdoing with respect to Paul Whelan; Whereas Paul Whelan was imprisoned in Lefortovo Prison and was held in pretrial detention at the prison for more than 19 months after his arrest; Whereas a Moscow court extended Paul Whelan's pretrial detention multiple times without publicly presenting justification or evidence of wrongdoing; Whereas even Vladimir Zherebenkov, the lawyer appointed by the Federal Security Service to represent Paul Whelan, said on May 24, 2019, ``[The Federal Security Service] always roll[s] out what they have, but in this case, we've seen nothing concrete against Whelan in five months. That means there is nothing.''; Whereas then-United States Ambassador to the Russian Federation, Jon Huntsman, responded on April 12, 2019, to a question about the detention of Paul Whelan, ``If the Russians have evidence, they should bring it forward. We have seen nothing. If there was a case, I think the evidence would have been brought forward by now.''; Whereas then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on May 14, 2019, and urged him to ensure United States citizens are not unjustly held abroad; Whereas the Kremlin has refused to provide Paul Whelan with full access to his lawyer, and the so-called evidence against Paul Whelan and any evidence he has seen is in Russian, a language Whelan does not read or speak; Whereas the Lefortovo pretrial detention facility and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs refused to provide medical treatment for Paul Whelan's medical condition, despite being aware of its worsening state, resulting in emergency surgery on May 29, 2020; Whereas Paul Whelan was wrongfully convicted on June 15, 2020, and sentenced to 16 years in a Russian labor camp by a three-judge panel, in a trial witnessed by United States Ambassador John Sullivan, who referred to the trial as ``a mockery of justice'' due to the denial of a fair trial and the exclusion of defense witnesses; Whereas, in August 2020, on an unknown day, Paul Whelan was secretly transferred to camp IK-17, a penal labor camp in Mordovia, Russia, where he is forced to work 6 days a week in a garment factory; Whereas Ambassador John Sullivan, while visiting Paul Whelan at the labor camp in Mordovia, stated that ``Russian authorities . . . have never shown the world evidence of his guilt,'' and reiterated his call for the Russian authorities to correct this injustice and release Paul Whelan; Whereas Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on February 4, 2021, and urged him to release United States citizens detained in the Russian Federation, including Paul Whelan and Trevor Reed, so that they are able to return home to their families in the United States; Whereas, on July 23, 2021, the Senate unanimously passed a bipartisan resolution calling for the release of Whelan; Whereas, in August 2021, Whelan was released from a month- long stay in a solitary confinement at the IK-17 penal colony in the region of Mordovia; Whereas Secretary Blinken ``pressed'' the Kremlin to accept an offer by the United States that would bring Paul Whelan and Brittney Griner home in July 2022; Whereas, in November 2022, Paul Whelan was unable to contact his family for more than a week, during which time Russian authorities claimed Whelan had been sent to the hospital; Whereas Russian authorities refused to release Paul Whelan as part of the prisoner exchange in December 2022; Whereas Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated, ``His detention remains unacceptable, and we continue to press for his immediate release at every opportunity''; and Whereas President Biden stated that his administration had ``not forgotten about Paul Whelan,'' and promised to ``keep negotiating in good faith for his release'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) implores the Government of the Russian Federation to immediately release Paul Whelan from imprisonment; (2) implores the Government of the Russian Federation to comply with international treaty obligations and provide unrestricted consular access to Paul Whelan while he remains imprisoned in the Russian Federation; (3) calls on the Government of the Russian Federation to provide Paul Whelan and all other political prisoners their constitutionally afforded due process rights and universally recognized human rights; (4) expresses the sincere thanks of the United States to the Governments of Canada, Ireland and the United Kingdom for their support in attempting to release Paul Whelan; and (5) expresses sympathy to the family of Paul Whelan for this travesty to justice and personal hardship and expresses hope that their ordeal can soon be brought to a just end. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1106 | null | 6,119 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Murphy, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Coons, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Welch, Mr. King, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Markey, Ms. Duckworth, and Mr. Schumer) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 157 Whereas, 25 years ago, on April 10, 1998, the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom signed the Good Friday Agreement, also known as the ``Belfast Agreement'', giving birth to a new era of peace in Northern Ireland; Whereas former Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell, Jr. of Maine, was appointed by President William J. Clinton to be United States Special Envoy for Northern Ireland and chaired the peace negotiations, which produced the Good Friday Agreement, marking the end of decades of conflict in Northern Ireland; Whereas the Good Friday Agreement stands as a historic and groundbreaking success that remains critical to peace in the future; Whereas the goals of the Good Friday Agreement remain to bring a new era of devolved government and democracy to Northern Ireland, end violence, and ensure enduring peace and stability for the people of the island of Ireland; Whereas a restored, fully functioning, Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive are essential to the facilitation of new opportunities and prosperity for the people of Northern Ireland; Whereas Congress continues to support the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent implementation agreements and arrangements in order to support peace on the island of Ireland; Whereas the new Windsor Framework, agreed in principle on February 27, 2023, by the United Kingdom and the European Union, will help ensure trade within the United Kingdom remains smooth, while protecting Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom and safeguarding its sovereignty as well as maintaining an open border on the island of Ireland and protecting the integrity of the European Union's single market; Whereas, despite the historic progress in implementing the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent agreements, including the Stormont House Agreement agreed to in December 2014, important issues remain unresolved in Northern Ireland, including the passage of a bill of rights, securing justice for all victims of violence, including violence by state and nonstate actors, and reducing sectarian divisions and promoting reconciliation; Whereas the Good Friday Agreement (``Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity'') recognizes ``the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity,'' and, in 2022, the United Kingdom Parliament passed the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act providing for the official recognition of the status of the Irish language in Northern Ireland, and for the appointment of an Irish Language Commissioner and a Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British Tradition; Whereas Congress played a prominent role in support of negotiations of the Good Friday Agreement and has taken a leading role in promoting peace on the island of Ireland more broadly; Whereas Congress stands steadfastly committed to supporting the peaceful resolution of any and all political challenges in Northern Ireland; and Whereas the United States has a special relationship with the United Kingdom, including partnership on diplomatic, security, trade, economic, and foreign assistance issues: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) commemorates the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Good Friday Agreement on April 10, 1998, and celebrates the historic compromise that marked the beginning of a new era of peaceful political engagement in Northern Ireland; (2) welcomes the Windsor Framework agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union, and urges all parties to continue to support peace on the island of Ireland and the principles, objectives, and commitments of the Good Friday Agreement, (3) urges all parties in Northern Ireland to recommit urgently to power-sharing and restoration of a fully functioning Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive; (4) expresses support for the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent agreements, including the Windsor Framework; (5) urges all parties in Northern Ireland to work collectively to ensure the implementation of all commitments of the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent agreements so that all of the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement can operate successfully and sustainably and that ongoing political challenges can be overcome; (6) urges the United Kingdom Parliament and the European Union to support and implement in good faith the new Windsor Framework in order to ensure trade continues to flow smoothly within the United Kingdom and maintain an open border on the island of Ireland, while protecting the European Union's single market; (7) supports the passage of a bill of rights for Northern Ireland and the principle of consent in relation to the right of self-determination for all the people on the island of Ireland, in line with the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement; (8) calls for continuing attention and action to resolve the injustices of past violence, including violence by state and nonstate actors; (9) observes that victims, survivors, and family members of victims of Troubles-era violence must be able to fully pursue justice; (10) encourages renewed attention to educational and cultural efforts that will ensure the rich language, literature, and arts of Northern Ireland endure and are not diminished, in line with the Good Friday Agreement commitments on ``Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity''; (11) expresses support for the new Windsor Framework, part of the European Union-United Kingdom Withdrawal Agreement, which ensures through international agreement that no ``hard border'' will be reintroduced on the island of Ireland; (12) greatly values the close relationships the United States shares with both the United Kingdom and Ireland; and (13) takes into account, as relevant, conditions requiring that obligations under the Good Friday Agreement be met as the United States seeks to negotiate a mutually advantageous and comprehensive trade agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1107 | null | 6,120 |
formal | safeguarding | null | transphobic | Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Murphy, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Coons, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Welch, Mr. King, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Markey, Ms. Duckworth, and Mr. Schumer) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 157 Whereas, 25 years ago, on April 10, 1998, the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom signed the Good Friday Agreement, also known as the ``Belfast Agreement'', giving birth to a new era of peace in Northern Ireland; Whereas former Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell, Jr. of Maine, was appointed by President William J. Clinton to be United States Special Envoy for Northern Ireland and chaired the peace negotiations, which produced the Good Friday Agreement, marking the end of decades of conflict in Northern Ireland; Whereas the Good Friday Agreement stands as a historic and groundbreaking success that remains critical to peace in the future; Whereas the goals of the Good Friday Agreement remain to bring a new era of devolved government and democracy to Northern Ireland, end violence, and ensure enduring peace and stability for the people of the island of Ireland; Whereas a restored, fully functioning, Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive are essential to the facilitation of new opportunities and prosperity for the people of Northern Ireland; Whereas Congress continues to support the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent implementation agreements and arrangements in order to support peace on the island of Ireland; Whereas the new Windsor Framework, agreed in principle on February 27, 2023, by the United Kingdom and the European Union, will help ensure trade within the United Kingdom remains smooth, while protecting Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom and safeguarding its sovereignty as well as maintaining an open border on the island of Ireland and protecting the integrity of the European Union's single market; Whereas, despite the historic progress in implementing the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent agreements, including the Stormont House Agreement agreed to in December 2014, important issues remain unresolved in Northern Ireland, including the passage of a bill of rights, securing justice for all victims of violence, including violence by state and nonstate actors, and reducing sectarian divisions and promoting reconciliation; Whereas the Good Friday Agreement (``Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity'') recognizes ``the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity,'' and, in 2022, the United Kingdom Parliament passed the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act providing for the official recognition of the status of the Irish language in Northern Ireland, and for the appointment of an Irish Language Commissioner and a Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British Tradition; Whereas Congress played a prominent role in support of negotiations of the Good Friday Agreement and has taken a leading role in promoting peace on the island of Ireland more broadly; Whereas Congress stands steadfastly committed to supporting the peaceful resolution of any and all political challenges in Northern Ireland; and Whereas the United States has a special relationship with the United Kingdom, including partnership on diplomatic, security, trade, economic, and foreign assistance issues: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) commemorates the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Good Friday Agreement on April 10, 1998, and celebrates the historic compromise that marked the beginning of a new era of peaceful political engagement in Northern Ireland; (2) welcomes the Windsor Framework agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union, and urges all parties to continue to support peace on the island of Ireland and the principles, objectives, and commitments of the Good Friday Agreement, (3) urges all parties in Northern Ireland to recommit urgently to power-sharing and restoration of a fully functioning Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive; (4) expresses support for the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent agreements, including the Windsor Framework; (5) urges all parties in Northern Ireland to work collectively to ensure the implementation of all commitments of the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent agreements so that all of the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement can operate successfully and sustainably and that ongoing political challenges can be overcome; (6) urges the United Kingdom Parliament and the European Union to support and implement in good faith the new Windsor Framework in order to ensure trade continues to flow smoothly within the United Kingdom and maintain an open border on the island of Ireland, while protecting the European Union's single market; (7) supports the passage of a bill of rights for Northern Ireland and the principle of consent in relation to the right of self-determination for all the people on the island of Ireland, in line with the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement; (8) calls for continuing attention and action to resolve the injustices of past violence, including violence by state and nonstate actors; (9) observes that victims, survivors, and family members of victims of Troubles-era violence must be able to fully pursue justice; (10) encourages renewed attention to educational and cultural efforts that will ensure the rich language, literature, and arts of Northern Ireland endure and are not diminished, in line with the Good Friday Agreement commitments on ``Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity''; (11) expresses support for the new Windsor Framework, part of the European Union-United Kingdom Withdrawal Agreement, which ensures through international agreement that no ``hard border'' will be reintroduced on the island of Ireland; (12) greatly values the close relationships the United States shares with both the United Kingdom and Ireland; and (13) takes into account, as relevant, conditions requiring that obligations under the Good Friday Agreement be met as the United States seeks to negotiate a mutually advantageous and comprehensive trade agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1107 | null | 6,121 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 58. Mr. SCHUMER proposed an amendment 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; as follows: At the end add the following: | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1108-2 | null | 6,122 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 58. Mr. SCHUMER proposed an amendment 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. SA 59. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 870, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table. SA 60. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 870, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table. SA 61. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 870, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table. SA 62. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 870, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table. SA 63. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 870, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table. SA 64. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 870, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table. SA 65. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 870, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table. SA 66. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 870, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table. SA 67. Mr. SCOTT of Florida submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 870, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1108 | null | 6,123 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 58. Mr. SCHUMER proposed an amendment 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; as follows: At the end add the following: | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1108-3 | null | 6,124 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 59. Mr. LEE 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 | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1108-4 | null | 6,125 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 60. Mr. LEE 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 | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1108-5 | null | 6,126 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 61. Mr. LEE 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 | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1108-6 | null | 6,127 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 62. Mr. LEE 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 | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1108-7 | null | 6,128 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 63. Mr. LEE 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 | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1108-8 | null | 6,129 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 64. Mr. LEE 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 | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1108-9 | null | 6,130 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 66. Mr. LEE 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 | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1109-2 | null | 6,131 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 67. Mr. SCOTT of Florida 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-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1109-3 | null | 6,132 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 65. Mr. LEE 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 | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-03-30-pt1-PgS1109 | null | 6,133 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-665. A letter from the Deputy Commissioner, Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs, Social Security Administration, transmitting the Administration's FY 2022 No FEAR Act report, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 2301 note; Public Law 107-174, Sec. 203(a) (as amended by Public Law 109-435, Sec. 604(f)); (120 Stat. 3242); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-666. A letter from the Board, Board Of Trustees Of The Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, transmitting notification letter from the Board of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1395i(b)(2); Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XVIII, Sec. 1817(b)(2) (as amended by Public Law 108-173, Sec. 801(d)(1)); (117 Stat. 2359) and 42 U.S.C. 1395t(b)(2); Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XVIII, Sec. 1841(b)(2) (as amended by Public Law 108-173, Sec. 801(d)(2)); (117 (H. Doc. No. 118--23); to the Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed. EC-667. A letter from the Board Members, Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, transmitting Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds notification letter, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 910(a); Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title VII, Sec. 709 (as added by Public Law 98-21, Sec. 143); (97 Stat. 102) and 42 U.S.C. 401(c)(2); Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title II, Sec. 201 (as amended by Public Law 100-647, Sec. 8005(a)); (102 Stat. 3781) (H. Doc. No. 118--17); to the Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed. EC-668. A letter from the Board of Trustees, Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, transmitting The 2023 Report Of The Trustees Of The Federal Old-Age And Survivors Insurance And Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 910(a); Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title VII, Sec. 709 (as added by Public Law 98-21, Sec. 143); (97 Stat. 102) and 42 U.S.C. 401(c)(2); Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title II, Sec. 201 (as amended by Public Law 100-647, Sec. 8005(a)); (102 Stat. 3781) (H. Doc. No. 118--21); to the Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed. EC-669. A letter from the Board of Trustees, Boards Of Trustees Of The Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund And Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, transmitting notification letter and 2023 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1395i(b)(2); Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XVIII, Sec. 1817(b)(2) (as amended by Public Law 108-173, Sec. 801(d)(1)); (117 Stat. 2359) and 42 U.S.C. 1395t(b)(2); Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XVIII, Sec. 1841(b)(2) (as amended by Public Law 108-173, Sec. 801(d)(2)); (117 (H. Doc. No. 118--22); jointly to the Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce, and ordered to be printed. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-04-03-pt1-PgH1697-8 | null | 6,134 |
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-2023-04-03-pt1-PgH1698-2 | null | 6,135 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas: H.J. Res. 50. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States. The single subject of this legislation is: A resolution disapproving of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection's final rule implementing small business lending data collection as directed by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Section 1071. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-04-03-pt1-PgH1699-22 | null | 6,136 |
formal | Detroit | null | racist | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-670. A letter from the Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Consumer Product Safety Commission, transmitting the Commission's Direct final rule -- Safety Standard for Non- Full-Size Baby Cribs [Docket No.: CPSC-2019-0025] received March 22, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-671. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Virginia; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards Second Maintenance Plan for the Richmond-Petersburg Area [EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0870; FRL-9148-02-R3] received March 14, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-672. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference [EPA- R04-OAR-2021-0075; FRL-9361-01-R4] received March 14, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-673. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference [EPA- R04-OAR-2021-0021; FRL-9363-01-R4] received March 14, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-674. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Revisions to Particulate Matter Rules; Vertellus [EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0640; FRL-10117-02-R5] received March 14, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-675. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; AK; Adoption and Permitting Rule Updates [EPA-R10-OAR-2022- 0721; FRL-10452-02-R10] received March 14, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-676. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- BLB2 and AMR3 Proteins in Potato; Temporary Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0234; FRL-10776-01-OCSPP] received March 14, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-677. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Paraffin Waxes and Hydrocarbon Waxes, Carboxypolymethylene Resin, and Paraffin Waxes and Hydrocarbon, Oxidized, Lithium Salts in Pesticide Formulations; Tolerance Exemption [EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0190; FRL- 10783-01-OCSPP] received March 14, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-678. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's interim final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Interim Final Determination To Stay and Defer Sanctions in the Detroit Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area [EPA-R05-OAR- 2022-0976; FRL-10788-03-R5] received March 17, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-679. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Azoxystrobin; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0729; FRL-10603-01-OCSPP] received March 17, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-680. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's Major final rule -- Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards [EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668; FRL-8670-02-OAR] (RIN: 2060-AV51) received March 17, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-681. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of Section 73.622(j), Table of Allotments Television Broadcast Stations (Hampton, Virginia) [MB Docket No.: 22-151] (RM-11927) received March 22, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-682. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of Section 73.622(j), Table of Allotments Television Broadcast Stations (Roanoke, Virginia) [MB Docket No.: 23-14] (RM-11943) received March 22, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-683. A letter from the Executive Director, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Annual Update of Filing Fees [Docket No.: RM23-2-000] received March 21, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-684. A letter from the Regulatory Policy Analyst, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Medical Devices; Technical Amendments [Docket No.: FDA-2021-N-0246] received March 23, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-685. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of Section 73.622(j), Table of Allotments, Television Broadcast Stations (Lufkin, Texas) [MB Docket No.: 22-436] (RM-11941) received March 22, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-686. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of Section 73.622(j), Table of Allotments, Television Broadcast Stations (Odessa, Texas) [MB Docket No.: 22-435] (RM-11940) received March 22, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-687. A letter from the Chair, Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission, transmitting the Commission's March 2023 Report to Congress on Medicaid and CHIP, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1396(b)(1)(C); Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XIX, Sec. 1900 (as amended by Public Law 111-148, Sec. 2801(a)(1)(A)(iv)); (123 Stat. 91); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-688. A letter from the Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting the Bureau's 2022 No FEAR Act Report, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 2301 note; Public Law 107- 174, Sec. 203(a) (as amended by Public Law 109-435, Sec. 604(f)); (120 Stat. 3242); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-689. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulations, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 2023 Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustments for Oil, Gas, and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf [Docket ID: BOEM-2023-0001] (RIN: 1010-AE17] received March 17, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-690. A letter from the Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- 2023 Adjustment of the Penalty for Violation of Notice Posting Requirements (RIN: 3046-AB17) received March 22, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-691. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Revisions to Civil Penalty Amounts (RIN: 2105-AF12) received March 22, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-692. A letter from the Branch Chief, Legal Processing Division, Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Relief for Reporting Required Minimum Distributions for IRAs for 2023 (Notice 2023-223) received March 13, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. EC-693. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- New procedures for implementing the Alternative Cost Method for Real Estate Developers (Rev. Proc. 2023-9) received March 13, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-04-06-pt1-PgH1706-2 | null | 6,137 |
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-2023-04-06-pt1-PgH1709 | null | 6,138 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. MAGAZINER: H.J. Res. 51. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, section 8, clause 18 The single subject of this legislation is: To establish term limits for members of Congress. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-04-06-pt1-PgH1712-12 | null | 6,139 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. MEEKS: H.J. Res. 52. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution The single subject of this legislation is: To repeal and replace the Authorization for Use of Military Force. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-04-06-pt1-PgH1712-13 | null | 6,140 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. NEHLS: H.J. Res. 53. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution The single subject of this legislation is, Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards''. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-04-06-pt1-PgH1712-14 | null | 6,141 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Ms. FOXX: Committee on Education and the Workforce. H.R. 734. A bill to amend the Education Amendments of 1972 to provide that for purposes of determining compliance with title IX of such Act in athletics, sex shall be recognized based solely on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth; with an amendment (Rept. 118-35). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-04-10-pt1-PgH1716-8 | null | 6,142 |
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-2023-04-10-pt1-PgH1718 | null | 6,143 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Ms. JAYAPAL: H.J. Res. 54. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to Congress under Article I of the United States Constitution and its subsequent amendments, and further clarified and interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. The single subject of this legislation is: This bill proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the rights protected and extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-04-10-pt1-PgH1719-10 | null | 6,144 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Pursuant to clause 7(c)(l) of rule XII and Section 3(c) of H. Res. 5 the following statements are submitted regarding (1) the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the accompanying bill or joint resolution and (2) the single subject of the bill or joint resolution. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-04-13-pt1-PgH1726-2 | null | 6,145 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Tribute to Terry O'Sullivan Madam President, now, on a dear friend, Terry O'Sullivan. Today, it brings me immense joy, gratitude, and a little sadness to pay tribute to a giant of American labor, a hero of working families, and a leader who truly stands in a category all his own: Terry O'Sullivan, who, Friday, retired as general president of the Laborers' International Union, or LIUNA, after more than two decades. Over the years, Terry has become one of the dearest friends I have had in Washington. There would be no expansive middle class in America without the labor movement, and the labor movement would not be the same today without Terry O'Sullivan and LIUNA. The proud members of LIUNA helped build our roads, our bridges, and tunnels and office buildings and housing. Under Terry's leadership, LIUNA has become the Laborers' Union, as it is fondly known, has become one of the most impactful unions of the 21st century. It was under Terry's watch that LIUNA workers helped clean up the wreckage of ground zero after 9/11. Under his watch, LIUNA built its first-ever high school for students to enter construction work. And it was LIUNA that organized the immigrants and supported comprehensive immigration reform. So, unsurprisingly, anyone who knows Terry knows his loyalty lies in one place and in one place alone: the working families of LIUNA and of Americans in general. And I know this personally: My cousin Abe Weinshall, who was a proud member of Local 79, the Hod Carriers, in New York, and they treated him so, so well, even when he had a severe illness, because the healthcare that the laborers were able to get was topnotch. Terry's loyalty to the working people has been very long. It is a loyalty that first drew breath in the early years of his childhood, having been raised in a union household as the son of LIUNA secretary treasurer Terrence O'Sullivan. At 11, Terry attended his first LIUNA convention. He started early. And from there on, there was no turning back. He became a proud card-carrying member for life. After becoming LIUNA general president in 2000, Terry spent the next two decades growing, modernizing, and expanding LIUNA into one of the greatest advocates for working Americans in this century. In the face of radical wealth polarization, Terry won better wages, better benefits, and greater say about working conditions for his union members of LIUNA and for his fellow Americans. I have known Terry a very long time. Terry first stood out to me because even at the most formal events in Washington, I noticed that Terry never wore a tie. We joke about that. But over the years, Terry has become a confidant, a brother, and someone I have turned to for advice and guidance again and again over the years. Some of my most enjoyable evenings in Washington were dinners with Terry and Yvette--his wife--and with a good glass of wine. To listen to Terry speak is to hear a man on fire with love for his country and with love for the working families of America. To watch Terry work is to see someone singularly dedicated to his mission. And he is someone equally at ease in the boardroom, the labor rally, and the construction site. He doesn't miss a beat going from one to the other. And, of course, Terry is famous for his candid style and no-nonsense attitude. He is from California. I am from Brooklyn. But we share that direct speaking way. If you cross Terry's path or the path of working families, you will quickly find out you made a powerful adversary. But if you win Terry's heart, you will discover you found a lifelong friend, as I have discovered. Of course, Terry's legacy is not just felt in America but around the world. He is a proud supporter of a united Ireland and of Irish workers. Terry and I have worked together on so many Irish issues, and we have agreed to continue working together in the years ahead. So, for me, this is not really a good-bye. Terry and I will stay good friends, working on the causes we believe in,and hopefully having some nice dinners at his and Yvette's home on the Eastern Shore. The work Terry began will certainly continue. The fights he advanced shall go on. And as we celebrate Terry's well-earned retirement, we wish him and his family the very, very best on their next adventure. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-01-pt1-PgS1430-2 | null | 6,146 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Tribute to Terry O'Sullivan Madam President, now, on a dear friend, Terry O'Sullivan. Today, it brings me immense joy, gratitude, and a little sadness to pay tribute to a giant of American labor, a hero of working families, and a leader who truly stands in a category all his own: Terry O'Sullivan, who, Friday, retired as general president of the Laborers' International Union, or LIUNA, after more than two decades. Over the years, Terry has become one of the dearest friends I have had in Washington. There would be no expansive middle class in America without the labor movement, and the labor movement would not be the same today without Terry O'Sullivan and LIUNA. The proud members of LIUNA helped build our roads, our bridges, and tunnels and office buildings and housing. Under Terry's leadership, LIUNA has become the Laborers' Union, as it is fondly known, has become one of the most impactful unions of the 21st century. It was under Terry's watch that LIUNA workers helped clean up the wreckage of ground zero after 9/11. Under his watch, LIUNA built its first-ever high school for students to enter construction work. And it was LIUNA that organized the immigrants and supported comprehensive immigration reform. So, unsurprisingly, anyone who knows Terry knows his loyalty lies in one place and in one place alone: the working families of LIUNA and of Americans in general. And I know this personally: My cousin Abe Weinshall, who was a proud member of Local 79, the Hod Carriers, in New York, and they treated him so, so well, even when he had a severe illness, because the healthcare that the laborers were able to get was topnotch. Terry's loyalty to the working people has been very long. It is a loyalty that first drew breath in the early years of his childhood, having been raised in a union household as the son of LIUNA secretary treasurer Terrence O'Sullivan. At 11, Terry attended his first LIUNA convention. He started early. And from there on, there was no turning back. He became a proud card-carrying member for life. After becoming LIUNA general president in 2000, Terry spent the next two decades growing, modernizing, and expanding LIUNA into one of the greatest advocates for working Americans in this century. In the face of radical wealth polarization, Terry won better wages, better benefits, and greater say about working conditions for his union members of LIUNA and for his fellow Americans. I have known Terry a very long time. Terry first stood out to me because even at the most formal events in Washington, I noticed that Terry never wore a tie. We joke about that. But over the years, Terry has become a confidant, a brother, and someone I have turned to for advice and guidance again and again over the years. Some of my most enjoyable evenings in Washington were dinners with Terry and Yvette--his wife--and with a good glass of wine. To listen to Terry speak is to hear a man on fire with love for his country and with love for the working families of America. To watch Terry work is to see someone singularly dedicated to his mission. And he is someone equally at ease in the boardroom, the labor rally, and the construction site. He doesn't miss a beat going from one to the other. And, of course, Terry is famous for his candid style and no-nonsense attitude. He is from California. I am from Brooklyn. But we share that direct speaking way. If you cross Terry's path or the path of working families, you will quickly find out you made a powerful adversary. But if you win Terry's heart, you will discover you found a lifelong friend, as I have discovered. Of course, Terry's legacy is not just felt in America but around the world. He is a proud supporter of a united Ireland and of Irish workers. Terry and I have worked together on so many Irish issues, and we have agreed to continue working together in the years ahead. So, for me, this is not really a good-bye. Terry and I will stay good friends, working on the causes we believe in,and hopefully having some nice dinners at his and Yvette's home on the Eastern Shore. The work Terry began will certainly continue. The fights he advanced shall go on. And as we celebrate Terry's well-earned retirement, we wish him and his family the very, very best on their next adventure. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-01-pt1-PgS1430-2 | null | 6,147 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Business Before the Senate Madam President, now on Senate business. Well, it is going to be another busy week here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Later today, the Senate will vote on the confirmation of Anthony Johnstone of Montana to serve a lifetime appointment as a circuit court judge for the Ninth Circuit. A graduate of Yale and the University of Chicago, Mr. Johnstone has a wealth of experience in both public service and private practice. As former members of the Montana Supreme Court attest to, Mr. Johnstone has one of the ``best legal minds and is the finest and most respected legal scholar in the State of Montana.'' At the end of the week, I also filed cloture on three additional district court judges from New Jersey and New York, and Members should be advised that I will be filing on additional judicial nominations later this evening. The Senate will work on processing all of these nominees over the course of the week. Judicial nominees remain a top priority for the Senate. Senate Democrats are proud we confirmed 119 new judges under President Biden, including 31 circuit court judges, 87 district court judges, and one groundbreaking Supreme Court Justice in Ketanji Brown Jackson. The diversity of these jurists is unlike anything our country has seen: 84 of these judges are women and 80 are people of color. The Senate will add to that impressive tally over the course of this week. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-01-pt1-PgS1430 | null | 6,148 |
formal | job creator | null | conservative | Tribute to Benjamin L. Cardin Madam President, finally, on another retirement announced just this afternoon: Let me close by honoring another great friend--beloved, truly beloved Member of our Senate, our dear colleague Ben Cardin of Maryland, who announced earlier today that he will retire at the end of this term. He is one of my dearest friends in the Senate and has been for a very long time and someone I have always admired for favoring substance over flash, for digging deeply into issues, and for his ability time and time again to persuade his colleagues of the justice of his causes, often working across the aisle to turn his ideas into successful legislation. In Senator Cardin, the people of Maryland have been gifted with the consummate public servant. ``Consummate public servant,'' doesn't that describe Ben so well? Whether representing Marylanders in the State House of Delegates or in Congress or in the Senate, Ben's north star has never changed: It is the people he serves, the communities he knows well, and the country he so dearly loves. And whether in foreign or domestic issues, he put the issues first, the politics second. And in doing so, won the respect of every corner of this Chamber. As Chair of the Small Business Committee, he spent years fighting for Main Street and been a tireless advocate for job creators and entrepreneurs, especially those who don't always have a seat at the table. And during COVID, Senator Cardin's leadership and expertise were absolutely essential as we passed legislation to protect family restaurants, local shop owners, independent businesses. There are tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of small businesses that are in existence now that wouldn't have been had Ben not fought so hard for them. So, in conclusion, I wish Ben and Myrna the very best on their road ahead. I have no doubt they will find new ways to serve the State of Maryland moving forward. And we will remain friends forever. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-01-pt1-PgS1431 | null | 6,149 |
formal | job creators | null | conservative | Tribute to Benjamin L. Cardin Madam President, finally, on another retirement announced just this afternoon: Let me close by honoring another great friend--beloved, truly beloved Member of our Senate, our dear colleague Ben Cardin of Maryland, who announced earlier today that he will retire at the end of this term. He is one of my dearest friends in the Senate and has been for a very long time and someone I have always admired for favoring substance over flash, for digging deeply into issues, and for his ability time and time again to persuade his colleagues of the justice of his causes, often working across the aisle to turn his ideas into successful legislation. In Senator Cardin, the people of Maryland have been gifted with the consummate public servant. ``Consummate public servant,'' doesn't that describe Ben so well? Whether representing Marylanders in the State House of Delegates or in Congress or in the Senate, Ben's north star has never changed: It is the people he serves, the communities he knows well, and the country he so dearly loves. And whether in foreign or domestic issues, he put the issues first, the politics second. And in doing so, won the respect of every corner of this Chamber. As Chair of the Small Business Committee, he spent years fighting for Main Street and been a tireless advocate for job creators and entrepreneurs, especially those who don't always have a seat at the table. And during COVID, Senator Cardin's leadership and expertise were absolutely essential as we passed legislation to protect family restaurants, local shop owners, independent businesses. There are tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of small businesses that are in existence now that wouldn't have been had Ben not fought so hard for them. So, in conclusion, I wish Ben and Myrna the very best on their road ahead. I have no doubt they will find new ways to serve the State of Maryland moving forward. And we will remain friends forever. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-01-pt1-PgS1431 | null | 6,150 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in the Jewish faith, there is a concept known as Tikkun olam. It refers to our responsibility to heal the world through good deeds and devotion to others. I want to tell you about a man who devoted all 92 years of his life to healing our world. His name was Lowell Sachnoff. He was a man who found joy in life, the law, and the cause of equal justice for all. And he brought that joy to all of us who were lucky to count him as a friend. Lowell passed away last month, peacefully, in his home in Evanston, IL. And saddened as I am by his loss, I am--above all--grateful that I got to know him. Lowell was a model of kindness, curiosity, and integrity. And in the words of his wife Fay, he was ``absolutely fearless when it came to representing the downtrodden, ignored, and abused.'' Our world is a better place because of his lifetime of service. Lowell's commitment to serving others began where he was born and raised: on Maxwell Street in Chicago. He grew up in a community of hard-working, Jewish immigrants during the Depression. And even from a young age, Lowell had a hunger for healing our broken world. It is only fitting--Lowell was raised by a family whose own world had been shattered by hate and persecution. His parents and grandparents were forced to flee their ancestral homeland of Ukraine because of pogroms targeting Jews. As a child, Lowell's grandparents would tell him stories about those dark days in Ukraine, about the relatives and friends who were tortured and murdered by the Russian regime, and the terrors of life in a ``lawless society.'' It was these conversations around the Sachnoff dinner table that inspired Lowell to become a lawyer--and to wield the law as an instrument for justice. As a student at Chicago's Senn High School, Lowell excelled in and outside of the classroom. He was a star on the swim team--and was even offered a full academic scholarship at Harvard and, later, Harvard Law. But before beginning his legal career, Lowell decided to first serve his country. He enlisted in the military and served as a lieutenant commander and naval intelligence officer during the Korean war. It was an experience that led to Lowell discovering one of his many lifelong passions: the Russian language. At first, he learned Russian as part of his intelligence responsibilities--but he stuck with it. In fact, I remember a conversation we had about 10 years ago. Lowell told me he was still practicing Russian--60 years later--through the online education platform Coursera. It is just one example of his boundless love for learning and discovery. And Lowell's curiosity--like his commitment to equal justice--only grew as the years went on. After serving in the military, Lowell brought his fight for justice home. He graduated from Harvard Law, with honors, and soon emerged as a legal legend and a civil rights icon. Lowell always understood that the cause of civil rights and human rights never comes to a final verdict. Those dedicated to freedom and fairness forge new contests and take on new battles every day. And for Lowell, the litany of causes began in the 1960s. In his pursuit of justice, he took on cases that most lawyers would never touch. One of them was a lawsuit against the Chicago Police officers who murdered two members of the Black Panther Party while they slept. One of the victims was Fred Hampton. It was the height of the civil rights movement, and tensions were even higher. But true to his fearless nature, Lowell took on the case--and won. A few years later, Lowell scored another victory for justice. He won a jury verdict regarding the routine, unlawful strip-searching of women by Chicago Police. Years after that, he won another historic verdict protecting the rights of women seeking reproductive healthcare. Time and again, Lowell fought for equality in every form--racial, gender, economic, you name it. He made no exceptions--because he was on a mission to heal the world for everyone. In 1981, Lowell's firm Sachnoff & Weaver represented a transgender pilotwho had been fired because of her gender identity. Today, nearly 40 years later, our Nation still has a long way to go in protecting the rights of transgender Americans. But with that case, Lowell helped introduce a legal rationale for enshrining transgender rights into the Civil Rights Act--which happened decades later. During our many years of friendship, Lowell never once called me on behalf of a paying client. Others would speak for them. The one time Lowell did call me about a case, it involved a man who had no voice in our system of justice. He was an accused terrorist who had been imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay for 15 years with no formal charge and no hope for a trial. Many considered the case a lost cause. Others considered it too controversial to touch. But Lowell never gave up. He believed that, even though the road to justice may be long, he had a responsibility to reach the end of it. So he pushed onward, for years, with a group of lawyers who shared his belief that Guantanamo was a ``stain on our justice system.'' Lowell even traveled to Guantanamo Bay six times, when he was in his 80s, to meet with detainees. And eventually, he and his cocounsel negotiated the release of four men who had been held captive for years. Lowell poured his whole heart into the case, as he did with every case. When he saw injustice, in any form, he couldn't help but think of his family who fled Ukraine. And he couldn't help but act. Really, there is a simple explanation for Lowell's long record of legal victories: He not only had a big, generous heart--but a big, sharp mind to match. In the words of the head of the Illinois ACLU, Colleen Connell, Lowell was a ``lawyer's lawyer . . . you could only be impressed [by] how he was able to conceptualize and bring a legal argument to life.'' And Lowell shared his wisdom and love for the law with everyone who worked with him. Perhaps his favorite part of leading Sachnoff & Weaver was mentoring younger litigators. He would take them under his wing and share whatever legal wisdom he could. These young lawyers became known as Lowell's ``ducklings,'' a nickname that has stuck even to this day, when said ducklings are now in their 60s and 70s. It was while working at Sachnoff & Weaver that Lowell joined forces with his most powerful ally in the fight for justice: his wife Fay Clayton. They met while working as lawyers in the same department, and things remained strictly professional for a few years. But soon enough, the sparks flew. They fell in love and became quite the power couple, working together to build a more equitable system of justice for everyone. Fay was captivated by the same qualities that so many of Lowell's friends loved: his zeal for life, learning, and creative expression. When they first started dating, Lowell would even surprise Fay with poems he had written for her. And his gift for writing was another of Lowell's passions that only grew as the years went on. Lowell and Fay were true believers in the idea that, no matter how busy life becomes, we should always find time to engage with our lifelong passions and chase new adventures. And together, that is exactly what they did--from scuba diving off the coast of Mexico, to growing vegetables, baking challah, going to jazz and classical music concerts, and swimming. Of course, nothing made the two of them happier than sharing their love for adventure with the children and grandchildren. As one example, Lowell and Fay made a promise to each one of his grandkids: Pick any place in the world you want to go, and we will take you. And they made good on that promise, traveling to Australia, Kenya, Peru, Greece, and Croatia. It was a true family world tour. And in honor of Lowell's lifelong love for learning, his children have paid a fitting, final tribute. They created a writing prize, named in Lowell's honor, at his alma mater Senn High School. It is a gift that will support a new generation of changemakers, so they can follow Lowell's footsteps in the fight for justice. I mentioned Lowell's love for poetry. One of his favorite poets was William Butler Yeats. Yeats once observed, ``The world is full of magic things, patiently waiting for our senses to grow sharper.'' Lowell lived his life sharpening and fine-tuning his senses to discover the world's magic things. He did it through the law, through his relationships, and through his voracious appetite for knowledge. And by devoting his life to healing our world, he uplifted countless others in their journey to discover those magic things. He set an example we would be wise to follow. The world has lost a good man. Loretta and I join Fay; Lowell's children Scott, Marc, and Kate; his stepchildren Kim and Suzanne; his grandkids Allie, Sam, Joel, Monica, and Sasha; and his great-granddaughter Sofia in mourning his loss. We miss him dearly. And we send our love to you all. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-05-01-pt1-PgS1437-7 | null | 6,151 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in the Jewish faith, there is a concept known as Tikkun olam. It refers to our responsibility to heal the world through good deeds and devotion to others. I want to tell you about a man who devoted all 92 years of his life to healing our world. His name was Lowell Sachnoff. He was a man who found joy in life, the law, and the cause of equal justice for all. And he brought that joy to all of us who were lucky to count him as a friend. Lowell passed away last month, peacefully, in his home in Evanston, IL. And saddened as I am by his loss, I am--above all--grateful that I got to know him. Lowell was a model of kindness, curiosity, and integrity. And in the words of his wife Fay, he was ``absolutely fearless when it came to representing the downtrodden, ignored, and abused.'' Our world is a better place because of his lifetime of service. Lowell's commitment to serving others began where he was born and raised: on Maxwell Street in Chicago. He grew up in a community of hard-working, Jewish immigrants during the Depression. And even from a young age, Lowell had a hunger for healing our broken world. It is only fitting--Lowell was raised by a family whose own world had been shattered by hate and persecution. His parents and grandparents were forced to flee their ancestral homeland of Ukraine because of pogroms targeting Jews. As a child, Lowell's grandparents would tell him stories about those dark days in Ukraine, about the relatives and friends who were tortured and murdered by the Russian regime, and the terrors of life in a ``lawless society.'' It was these conversations around the Sachnoff dinner table that inspired Lowell to become a lawyer--and to wield the law as an instrument for justice. As a student at Chicago's Senn High School, Lowell excelled in and outside of the classroom. He was a star on the swim team--and was even offered a full academic scholarship at Harvard and, later, Harvard Law. But before beginning his legal career, Lowell decided to first serve his country. He enlisted in the military and served as a lieutenant commander and naval intelligence officer during the Korean war. It was an experience that led to Lowell discovering one of his many lifelong passions: the Russian language. At first, he learned Russian as part of his intelligence responsibilities--but he stuck with it. In fact, I remember a conversation we had about 10 years ago. Lowell told me he was still practicing Russian--60 years later--through the online education platform Coursera. It is just one example of his boundless love for learning and discovery. And Lowell's curiosity--like his commitment to equal justice--only grew as the years went on. After serving in the military, Lowell brought his fight for justice home. He graduated from Harvard Law, with honors, and soon emerged as a legal legend and a civil rights icon. Lowell always understood that the cause of civil rights and human rights never comes to a final verdict. Those dedicated to freedom and fairness forge new contests and take on new battles every day. And for Lowell, the litany of causes began in the 1960s. In his pursuit of justice, he took on cases that most lawyers would never touch. One of them was a lawsuit against the Chicago Police officers who murdered two members of the Black Panther Party while they slept. One of the victims was Fred Hampton. It was the height of the civil rights movement, and tensions were even higher. But true to his fearless nature, Lowell took on the case--and won. A few years later, Lowell scored another victory for justice. He won a jury verdict regarding the routine, unlawful strip-searching of women by Chicago Police. Years after that, he won another historic verdict protecting the rights of women seeking reproductive healthcare. Time and again, Lowell fought for equality in every form--racial, gender, economic, you name it. He made no exceptions--because he was on a mission to heal the world for everyone. In 1981, Lowell's firm Sachnoff & Weaver represented a transgender pilotwho had been fired because of her gender identity. Today, nearly 40 years later, our Nation still has a long way to go in protecting the rights of transgender Americans. But with that case, Lowell helped introduce a legal rationale for enshrining transgender rights into the Civil Rights Act--which happened decades later. During our many years of friendship, Lowell never once called me on behalf of a paying client. Others would speak for them. The one time Lowell did call me about a case, it involved a man who had no voice in our system of justice. He was an accused terrorist who had been imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay for 15 years with no formal charge and no hope for a trial. Many considered the case a lost cause. Others considered it too controversial to touch. But Lowell never gave up. He believed that, even though the road to justice may be long, he had a responsibility to reach the end of it. So he pushed onward, for years, with a group of lawyers who shared his belief that Guantanamo was a ``stain on our justice system.'' Lowell even traveled to Guantanamo Bay six times, when he was in his 80s, to meet with detainees. And eventually, he and his cocounsel negotiated the release of four men who had been held captive for years. Lowell poured his whole heart into the case, as he did with every case. When he saw injustice, in any form, he couldn't help but think of his family who fled Ukraine. And he couldn't help but act. Really, there is a simple explanation for Lowell's long record of legal victories: He not only had a big, generous heart--but a big, sharp mind to match. In the words of the head of the Illinois ACLU, Colleen Connell, Lowell was a ``lawyer's lawyer . . . you could only be impressed [by] how he was able to conceptualize and bring a legal argument to life.'' And Lowell shared his wisdom and love for the law with everyone who worked with him. Perhaps his favorite part of leading Sachnoff & Weaver was mentoring younger litigators. He would take them under his wing and share whatever legal wisdom he could. These young lawyers became known as Lowell's ``ducklings,'' a nickname that has stuck even to this day, when said ducklings are now in their 60s and 70s. It was while working at Sachnoff & Weaver that Lowell joined forces with his most powerful ally in the fight for justice: his wife Fay Clayton. They met while working as lawyers in the same department, and things remained strictly professional for a few years. But soon enough, the sparks flew. They fell in love and became quite the power couple, working together to build a more equitable system of justice for everyone. Fay was captivated by the same qualities that so many of Lowell's friends loved: his zeal for life, learning, and creative expression. When they first started dating, Lowell would even surprise Fay with poems he had written for her. And his gift for writing was another of Lowell's passions that only grew as the years went on. Lowell and Fay were true believers in the idea that, no matter how busy life becomes, we should always find time to engage with our lifelong passions and chase new adventures. And together, that is exactly what they did--from scuba diving off the coast of Mexico, to growing vegetables, baking challah, going to jazz and classical music concerts, and swimming. Of course, nothing made the two of them happier than sharing their love for adventure with the children and grandchildren. As one example, Lowell and Fay made a promise to each one of his grandkids: Pick any place in the world you want to go, and we will take you. And they made good on that promise, traveling to Australia, Kenya, Peru, Greece, and Croatia. It was a true family world tour. And in honor of Lowell's lifelong love for learning, his children have paid a fitting, final tribute. They created a writing prize, named in Lowell's honor, at his alma mater Senn High School. It is a gift that will support a new generation of changemakers, so they can follow Lowell's footsteps in the fight for justice. I mentioned Lowell's love for poetry. One of his favorite poets was William Butler Yeats. Yeats once observed, ``The world is full of magic things, patiently waiting for our senses to grow sharper.'' Lowell lived his life sharpening and fine-tuning his senses to discover the world's magic things. He did it through the law, through his relationships, and through his voracious appetite for knowledge. And by devoting his life to healing our world, he uplifted countless others in their journey to discover those magic things. He set an example we would be wise to follow. The world has lost a good man. Loretta and I join Fay; Lowell's children Scott, Marc, and Kate; his stepchildren Kim and Suzanne; his grandkids Allie, Sam, Joel, Monica, and Sasha; and his great-granddaughter Sofia in mourning his loss. We miss him dearly. And we send our love to you all. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-05-01-pt1-PgS1437-7 | null | 6,152 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, over the years, I have taken a moment to recognize the hard work and dedication of my staff as they depart and advance their professional development. One of the most capable staffers I have had the honor of working with is Brad Watts, who served as my chief counsel for more than 4 years. Brad is truly one of a kind. He is tenacious, tireless, and objectively brilliant. He has earned a reputation for being someone you want on your team advocating on your behalf because he will fight for you tooth and nail and leave nothing on the table. And he has earned a reputation for being someone you don't want to see on your opposing team because he is one tough negotiator who can take you to hell and back. Brad became my chief counsel shortly before the 116th Congress, which is when I first became chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee. I don't think Brad came in knowing much or anything about intellectual property, which is regarded as one of the most difficult areas of law for even the most intelligent lawyers to pick up. Not only did Brad pick it up, he excelled at it. Our subcommittee was the most active one on the Senate Judiciary Committee during the 116th Congress as we explored ways to improve and modernize our intellectual property system. Perhaps most notably, we held a historic 3-day sprint of hearings during which we heard from 45 different witnesses about the broken state of patent eligibility. Only someone as hard-working as Brad could have made that happen. Brad was also instrumental in negotiating, writing, and passing some of the most consequential bipartisan legislation in generations during the 117th Congress, addressing issues long considered to be ``third rails'' in American politics. One example was the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. Brad was masterful throughout the negotiation process as Senators and their staff workednonstop to forge a compromise. The end result was passing the first law in more than three decades aimed at reducing violence, expanding access to mental health services, and improving community safety. And we did it in a way that protected the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. Later that year, Brad was assigned another important task: making major modifications to the Respect for Marriage Act and winning enough votes to pass it through Congress. It is a sensitive issue for both sides of the political spectrum that required a well-thought-out approach, and Brad played a key role in reaching that compromise that included a number of new legal protections for religious institutions and nonprofits. These new protections struck the right balance, and the bill earned the bipartisan support it needed to pass both Chambers and be signed into law. Neither of those bills would have even gotten a vote had Brad not been at the negotiating table and burning the midnight oil every single day. I take pride in playing an active role in the professional development of my staff, and it was no surprise that the private sector also took notice of Brad's personal dedication and policy expertise. The Chamber of Commerce hired him to serve as their vice president of innovation policy. It is a testament to the work he put in to quickly become of the Nation's top policy experts on intellectual property. While I am sad to see him go, I am also very proud of the work he has done through his service to the State of North Carolina and the U.S. Senate. And I am excited to see the great things he will accomplish in the coming years. To borrow a line from one of Brad's favorites, the legendary Dolly Parton, ``You'll never do a whole lot unless you're brave enough to try.'' | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TILLIS | Senate | CREC-2023-05-01-pt1-PgS1438-2 | null | 6,153 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | At 3:03 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bills and joint resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 1339. An act to require the Federal Communications Commission to review certain rules of the Commission and develop recommendations for rule changes to promote precision agriculture, and for other purposes. H.R. 2811. An act to provide for a responsible increase to the debt ceiling, and for other purposes. H.J. Res. 39. Joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Commerce relating to ``Procedures Covering Suspension of Liquidation, Duties and Estimated Duties in Accord With Presidential Proclamation 10414''. The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following concurrent resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H. Con. Res. 35. Concurrent resolution authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for an event to celebrate a King Kamehameha Day Lei Draping Ceremony. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-01-pt1-PgS1439-3 | null | 6,154 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following bill was read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: H.R. 1339. An act to require the Federal Communications Commission to review certain rules of the Commission and develop recommendations for rule changes to promote precision agriculture, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-01-pt1-PgS1439-4 | null | 6,155 |
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-1105. A communication from the Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Department of Labor, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Rescission of Implementing Legal Requirements Regarding the Equal Opportunity Clause's Religious Exemption Rule'' (RIN1250-AA09) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 17, 2023; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1106. A communication from the Board of Trustees, National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust, transmitting, pursuant to law, the annual management report relative to its operations and financial condition for fiscal year 2022; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1107. A communication from the Policy Analyst, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Food Labeling, Infant Formula Requirements, Food Additives and Generally Recognized as Safe Substances, New Dietary Ingredient Notification; Technical Amendments'' (Docket No. FDA-2022-N-2898) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 17, 2023; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1108. A communication from the Regulatory Policy Analyst, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Medical Devices; Technical Amendments'' (Docket No. FDA-2021-N-0246) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 17, 2023; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1109. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing Benefits'' (29 CFR Part 4044) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 17, 2023; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1110. A communication from the Regulatory Policy Analyst, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Definition of the Term 'Tobacco Product' in Regulations Issued Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act'' (Docket No. FDA-2022-N-3262) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 17, 2023; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1111. A communication from the Regulatory Policy Analyst, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Change of Address; Technical Amendment'' (Docket No. FDA-2023-N-0986) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 17, 2023; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1112. A communication from the Deputy Associate General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Minimum Standards for Driver's Licenses and Identification Cards Acceptable by Federal Agencies for Official Purposes; Extending Enforcement Date'' (RIN1601-AB03) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 25, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1113. A communication from the Deputy Director of Congressional Affairs, National Archives and Records Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to seven (2) reports relative to vacancies in the National Archives and Records Administration received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 25, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1114. A communication from the Senior Congressional Liaison, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Bureau's fiscal year 2022 annual report relative to the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act) received in the Office of the President pro tempore; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1115. A communication from the Director, Equal Employment Opportunities and Diversity Programs, National Archives and Records Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Administration's fiscal year 2022 annual report relative to the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act) received in the Office of the President pro tempore; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1116. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs), transmitting additional legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests be enacted during the first session of the 118th Congress; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1117. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a notice regarding a legislative proposal, that would grant the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) statutory authority to collect trademark licensing fees from trademarks owned or controlled by DHS; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1118. A communication from the President, Chief Scout Executive, and the National Commissioner, Boy Scouts of America, transmitting, pursuant to law, the organization's 2022 annual report; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-1119. A communication from the Chair of the Administrative Conference of the United States, transmitting, a report entitled ``Equal Access to Justice Act Awards Report to Congress Fiscal Year 2022''; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-1120. A communication from the Secretary, Judicial Conference of the United States, transmitting, a report relative to Article III judgeship recommendations for the 118th Congress and draft legislation entitled ``Federal Judgeship Act of 2023''; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-1121. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs), transmitting additional legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests be enacted during the first session of the 118th Congress; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-1122. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Schedule of Fees for Consular Services - Nonimmigrant and Special Visa Fees'' (RIN1400-AF33) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 17, 2023; to the Committee on the Judiciary. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-01-pt1-PgS1440-2 | null | 6,156 |
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-2023-05-02-pt1-PgH2127 | null | 6,157 |
formal | extremist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now, yesterday, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen released a letter warning that the U.S. government will likely default on its obligations as soon as June 1, only 30 days away. Rather than listen to reason, Speaker McCarthy has caved to extremists. By passing the ``Default on America Act,'' he has handed the keys over to the House Freedom Caucus, many of whom are more than happy to let the United States default if they don't get every last cut and every last unrelated, hard-right policy that had been added to this bill chockablock. Every one of them they want. As one House Freedom Caucus Member said plainly, Speaker McCarthy ``cannot get to 218 with changes to this deal.'' Let me read that again so everyone hears it. This is where we are at. A House Freedom Caucus Member--each of whom, as we know, has great power in the House because they didn't change their rules--as one Freedom Caucus Member has said, plainly, Speaker McCarthy ``cannot get to 218 with changes to this deal.'' But, as is obvious to just about anyone who looks at this, the ``Default on America Act'' has no future in the Senate. Consequently, Speaker McCarthy has created a situation where he knowingly passed an extreme bill, has been boxed by his Republican colleagues into a corner, and now has little room to maneuver, lest he provoke the ire of the House Freedom Caucus. McCarthy is giving us two terrible options: Either default on the debt or default on our country, with steep, severe, devastating cuts to things like law enforcement, veterans, families, teachers, kids, even cancer research. The only real option that does not hurt the American people is a clean, bipartisan bill to avert default. As Americans look at the ``Default on America Act,'' which the House just passed, they will discover that it reads less like a plan for averting default and more like a House Freedom Caucus manifesto. The ``Default on America Act'' would tear at the fabric of American society, imposing dramatic cuts to our public security, cutting law enforcement dramatically at a time when we need help from them; the cruel abandonment of veterans when we should be defending our veterans; terrible job losses at a time when this last Congress, under Democratic control, started bringing jobs back from overseas to America, on chip fab, on manufacturing, on batteries, and so many other things; blocking access to affordable healthcare--over 21 million Americans could lose the healthcare gains that we have made over the last while--and brutal attacks on working families across the board. In fact, nothing about the ``Default on America Act'' has been on the level. Let me quote something that Speaker McCarthy said right after becoming Speaker. This is a quote from Kevin McCarthy: I want to give all Americans a personal invitation, you are welcome to see this body at work. No longer will the doors be closed, but the debates will be open . . . from the committee rooms to this floor, we commit to pursue the truth passionately and embrace debate. Well, let's go over that one. No more closed doors? Give me a break. The ``Default on America'' bill was written entirely behind closed doors, without a shred of transparency. This bill, which so dramatically and deeply and harmfully hurts America, was done entirely behind closed doors. Debates will be in the open? How many committee debates did the House GOP hold on their ``Default on America Act''? How many expert witnesses were invited? How many amendments from the Democratic side were allowed to be presented? Again, the truth is, ``Default on America'' is an extremist bill that would never have a shot at passing muster with the American public on its own. As such, everything about this bill was rushed, was secret, was the antithesis of open and transparent. McCarthy's words ring hollow. The American people deserve better. Now, if Republicans refuse to level with the American people about their bill, Senate Democrats are more than happy to do it. We will show the American people how the ``Default on America Act'' will decimate Federal law enforcement in this country, erasing nearly 30,000 law enforcement jobs and leaving border security hanging out to dry. We will show how the ``Default on America Act'' is a direct assault on families. It slashes childcare, cuts Pell Grant funding, and even takes aim at programs as popular and beneficial as Meals on Wheels. I mean, do Republicans seriously think that is the way to avoid default, by depriving our country from the critical resources to feed hungry Americans? And we will show the American people how the ``Default on America'' is chock-full of totally irrelevant, hard-right goodies that would deregulate fossil fuels, empower the biggest corporations, give tax giveaways to the ultrarich, and impose cruel and unpopular attacks on working families. We will take the first step to expose these atrocities on Thursday, when the Senate Budget Committee holds hearings on how the ``Default on America Act'' will weaken our economy and slash hundreds of thousands of jobs. It will be the very first legislative hearing in either House that looks at what ``Default on America'' does, and there will be more hearings to follow. If Republicans want to sell their awful agenda to the American people, they are welcome to do so in debates about the budget and the appropriations process. That is where these debates have always happened, not in the middle of a default crisis that now stares us in the face. As Democrats expose the ``Default on America'' bill for what it is, our position remains the same, both parties should do what we have done in the past, the last three times default faced us: Both parties should pass a clean, bipartisan bill to avoid default together, before--before--we hit the critical June 1 deadline. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-05-02-pt1-PgS1445-8 | null | 6,158 |
formal | extremists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now, yesterday, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen released a letter warning that the U.S. government will likely default on its obligations as soon as June 1, only 30 days away. Rather than listen to reason, Speaker McCarthy has caved to extremists. By passing the ``Default on America Act,'' he has handed the keys over to the House Freedom Caucus, many of whom are more than happy to let the United States default if they don't get every last cut and every last unrelated, hard-right policy that had been added to this bill chockablock. Every one of them they want. As one House Freedom Caucus Member said plainly, Speaker McCarthy ``cannot get to 218 with changes to this deal.'' Let me read that again so everyone hears it. This is where we are at. A House Freedom Caucus Member--each of whom, as we know, has great power in the House because they didn't change their rules--as one Freedom Caucus Member has said, plainly, Speaker McCarthy ``cannot get to 218 with changes to this deal.'' But, as is obvious to just about anyone who looks at this, the ``Default on America Act'' has no future in the Senate. Consequently, Speaker McCarthy has created a situation where he knowingly passed an extreme bill, has been boxed by his Republican colleagues into a corner, and now has little room to maneuver, lest he provoke the ire of the House Freedom Caucus. McCarthy is giving us two terrible options: Either default on the debt or default on our country, with steep, severe, devastating cuts to things like law enforcement, veterans, families, teachers, kids, even cancer research. The only real option that does not hurt the American people is a clean, bipartisan bill to avert default. As Americans look at the ``Default on America Act,'' which the House just passed, they will discover that it reads less like a plan for averting default and more like a House Freedom Caucus manifesto. The ``Default on America Act'' would tear at the fabric of American society, imposing dramatic cuts to our public security, cutting law enforcement dramatically at a time when we need help from them; the cruel abandonment of veterans when we should be defending our veterans; terrible job losses at a time when this last Congress, under Democratic control, started bringing jobs back from overseas to America, on chip fab, on manufacturing, on batteries, and so many other things; blocking access to affordable healthcare--over 21 million Americans could lose the healthcare gains that we have made over the last while--and brutal attacks on working families across the board. In fact, nothing about the ``Default on America Act'' has been on the level. Let me quote something that Speaker McCarthy said right after becoming Speaker. This is a quote from Kevin McCarthy: I want to give all Americans a personal invitation, you are welcome to see this body at work. No longer will the doors be closed, but the debates will be open . . . from the committee rooms to this floor, we commit to pursue the truth passionately and embrace debate. Well, let's go over that one. No more closed doors? Give me a break. The ``Default on America'' bill was written entirely behind closed doors, without a shred of transparency. This bill, which so dramatically and deeply and harmfully hurts America, was done entirely behind closed doors. Debates will be in the open? How many committee debates did the House GOP hold on their ``Default on America Act''? How many expert witnesses were invited? How many amendments from the Democratic side were allowed to be presented? Again, the truth is, ``Default on America'' is an extremist bill that would never have a shot at passing muster with the American public on its own. As such, everything about this bill was rushed, was secret, was the antithesis of open and transparent. McCarthy's words ring hollow. The American people deserve better. Now, if Republicans refuse to level with the American people about their bill, Senate Democrats are more than happy to do it. We will show the American people how the ``Default on America Act'' will decimate Federal law enforcement in this country, erasing nearly 30,000 law enforcement jobs and leaving border security hanging out to dry. We will show how the ``Default on America Act'' is a direct assault on families. It slashes childcare, cuts Pell Grant funding, and even takes aim at programs as popular and beneficial as Meals on Wheels. I mean, do Republicans seriously think that is the way to avoid default, by depriving our country from the critical resources to feed hungry Americans? And we will show the American people how the ``Default on America'' is chock-full of totally irrelevant, hard-right goodies that would deregulate fossil fuels, empower the biggest corporations, give tax giveaways to the ultrarich, and impose cruel and unpopular attacks on working families. We will take the first step to expose these atrocities on Thursday, when the Senate Budget Committee holds hearings on how the ``Default on America Act'' will weaken our economy and slash hundreds of thousands of jobs. It will be the very first legislative hearing in either House that looks at what ``Default on America'' does, and there will be more hearings to follow. If Republicans want to sell their awful agenda to the American people, they are welcome to do so in debates about the budget and the appropriations process. That is where these debates have always happened, not in the middle of a default crisis that now stares us in the face. As Democrats expose the ``Default on America'' bill for what it is, our position remains the same, both parties should do what we have done in the past, the last three times default faced us: Both parties should pass a clean, bipartisan bill to avoid default together, before--before--we hit the critical June 1 deadline. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-05-02-pt1-PgS1445-8 | null | 6,159 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now, yesterday, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen released a letter warning that the U.S. government will likely default on its obligations as soon as June 1, only 30 days away. Rather than listen to reason, Speaker McCarthy has caved to extremists. By passing the ``Default on America Act,'' he has handed the keys over to the House Freedom Caucus, many of whom are more than happy to let the United States default if they don't get every last cut and every last unrelated, hard-right policy that had been added to this bill chockablock. Every one of them they want. As one House Freedom Caucus Member said plainly, Speaker McCarthy ``cannot get to 218 with changes to this deal.'' Let me read that again so everyone hears it. This is where we are at. A House Freedom Caucus Member--each of whom, as we know, has great power in the House because they didn't change their rules--as one Freedom Caucus Member has said, plainly, Speaker McCarthy ``cannot get to 218 with changes to this deal.'' But, as is obvious to just about anyone who looks at this, the ``Default on America Act'' has no future in the Senate. Consequently, Speaker McCarthy has created a situation where he knowingly passed an extreme bill, has been boxed by his Republican colleagues into a corner, and now has little room to maneuver, lest he provoke the ire of the House Freedom Caucus. McCarthy is giving us two terrible options: Either default on the debt or default on our country, with steep, severe, devastating cuts to things like law enforcement, veterans, families, teachers, kids, even cancer research. The only real option that does not hurt the American people is a clean, bipartisan bill to avert default. As Americans look at the ``Default on America Act,'' which the House just passed, they will discover that it reads less like a plan for averting default and more like a House Freedom Caucus manifesto. The ``Default on America Act'' would tear at the fabric of American society, imposing dramatic cuts to our public security, cutting law enforcement dramatically at a time when we need help from them; the cruel abandonment of veterans when we should be defending our veterans; terrible job losses at a time when this last Congress, under Democratic control, started bringing jobs back from overseas to America, on chip fab, on manufacturing, on batteries, and so many other things; blocking access to affordable healthcare--over 21 million Americans could lose the healthcare gains that we have made over the last while--and brutal attacks on working families across the board. In fact, nothing about the ``Default on America Act'' has been on the level. Let me quote something that Speaker McCarthy said right after becoming Speaker. This is a quote from Kevin McCarthy: I want to give all Americans a personal invitation, you are welcome to see this body at work. No longer will the doors be closed, but the debates will be open . . . from the committee rooms to this floor, we commit to pursue the truth passionately and embrace debate. Well, let's go over that one. No more closed doors? Give me a break. The ``Default on America'' bill was written entirely behind closed doors, without a shred of transparency. This bill, which so dramatically and deeply and harmfully hurts America, was done entirely behind closed doors. Debates will be in the open? How many committee debates did the House GOP hold on their ``Default on America Act''? How many expert witnesses were invited? How many amendments from the Democratic side were allowed to be presented? Again, the truth is, ``Default on America'' is an extremist bill that would never have a shot at passing muster with the American public on its own. As such, everything about this bill was rushed, was secret, was the antithesis of open and transparent. McCarthy's words ring hollow. The American people deserve better. Now, if Republicans refuse to level with the American people about their bill, Senate Democrats are more than happy to do it. We will show the American people how the ``Default on America Act'' will decimate Federal law enforcement in this country, erasing nearly 30,000 law enforcement jobs and leaving border security hanging out to dry. We will show how the ``Default on America Act'' is a direct assault on families. It slashes childcare, cuts Pell Grant funding, and even takes aim at programs as popular and beneficial as Meals on Wheels. I mean, do Republicans seriously think that is the way to avoid default, by depriving our country from the critical resources to feed hungry Americans? And we will show the American people how the ``Default on America'' is chock-full of totally irrelevant, hard-right goodies that would deregulate fossil fuels, empower the biggest corporations, give tax giveaways to the ultrarich, and impose cruel and unpopular attacks on working families. We will take the first step to expose these atrocities on Thursday, when the Senate Budget Committee holds hearings on how the ``Default on America Act'' will weaken our economy and slash hundreds of thousands of jobs. It will be the very first legislative hearing in either House that looks at what ``Default on America'' does, and there will be more hearings to follow. If Republicans want to sell their awful agenda to the American people, they are welcome to do so in debates about the budget and the appropriations process. That is where these debates have always happened, not in the middle of a default crisis that now stares us in the face. As Democrats expose the ``Default on America'' bill for what it is, our position remains the same, both parties should do what we have done in the past, the last three times default faced us: Both parties should pass a clean, bipartisan bill to avoid default together, before--before--we hit the critical June 1 deadline. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-05-02-pt1-PgS1445-8 | null | 6,160 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are holding a hearing that is ostensibly about Supreme Court ethics reform. Really, it is just another chapter in Washington Democrats' three-decade-long campaign to undermine the Federal Judiciary at any cost. There were the absurd smear campaigns aimed at jurists like Robert Bork and Janice Rogers Brown. There were the uncorroborated accusations held back with last-minute surprises against the nominations of Justice Thomas and Justice Kavanaugh. There was the silly attempt at a boycott by Democrats on the committee who didn't want to engage with Justice Barrett. Washington Democrats apparently find a textualist Court that upholds our written Constitution to be a mighty unappealing proposition. They made that clear for 30-plus years. And in the last few years, the hostility has reached reckless new highs: a sitting Senator stirring up crowds from the steps of the Court, naming Justices who would pay the price; unhinged activists marching on Justices' family homes; publishing the locations of their children's schools; and fueling a frenzy that had one unstable person literally--literally--plotting to assassinate a member of the Court; and Attorney General Garland simply refusing to enforce clear Federal law and stop illegal mob protests at judges' homes. Now we have the next raft of silly personal attacks. This time, the left and some of their media allies want the American people to gasp in horror--in horror--that one Supreme Court Justice vacations with his friends, that another one sold his house when he moved, and that Chief Justice Roberts' wife has a career outside the home. The Democrats even tried to pressure Chief Justice Roberts to trade the Supreme Court for their kangaroo court and show up in person today to hear them grandstand, a totally inappropriate request, as the Chief's polite and fact-based reply made clear. For goodness' sake, we now have Senate Democrats openly threatening to defund the Court's budget by the exact amount they need for security to protect the Justices and their families if the Justices don't reorganize internal affairs the way some Democrats want. Every 5 minutes, the Democratic Party wants to give lectures about upholding our institutions and protecting democracy. But just as often, they find a way to undertake a reckless attack against the courts and the rule of law. So look, I am proud of how our Nation's highest Court has weathered these latest baseless attempts to attack its authority. I believe in the integrity and honesty of all nine Justices--all nine of them. They should pay the partisan grandstanding no mind at all. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2023-05-02-pt1-PgS1446-3 | null | 6,161 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are holding a hearing that is ostensibly about Supreme Court ethics reform. Really, it is just another chapter in Washington Democrats' three-decade-long campaign to undermine the Federal Judiciary at any cost. There were the absurd smear campaigns aimed at jurists like Robert Bork and Janice Rogers Brown. There were the uncorroborated accusations held back with last-minute surprises against the nominations of Justice Thomas and Justice Kavanaugh. There was the silly attempt at a boycott by Democrats on the committee who didn't want to engage with Justice Barrett. Washington Democrats apparently find a textualist Court that upholds our written Constitution to be a mighty unappealing proposition. They made that clear for 30-plus years. And in the last few years, the hostility has reached reckless new highs: a sitting Senator stirring up crowds from the steps of the Court, naming Justices who would pay the price; unhinged activists marching on Justices' family homes; publishing the locations of their children's schools; and fueling a frenzy that had one unstable person literally--literally--plotting to assassinate a member of the Court; and Attorney General Garland simply refusing to enforce clear Federal law and stop illegal mob protests at judges' homes. Now we have the next raft of silly personal attacks. This time, the left and some of their media allies want the American people to gasp in horror--in horror--that one Supreme Court Justice vacations with his friends, that another one sold his house when he moved, and that Chief Justice Roberts' wife has a career outside the home. The Democrats even tried to pressure Chief Justice Roberts to trade the Supreme Court for their kangaroo court and show up in person today to hear them grandstand, a totally inappropriate request, as the Chief's polite and fact-based reply made clear. For goodness' sake, we now have Senate Democrats openly threatening to defund the Court's budget by the exact amount they need for security to protect the Justices and their families if the Justices don't reorganize internal affairs the way some Democrats want. Every 5 minutes, the Democratic Party wants to give lectures about upholding our institutions and protecting democracy. But just as often, they find a way to undertake a reckless attack against the courts and the rule of law. So look, I am proud of how our Nation's highest Court has weathered these latest baseless attempts to attack its authority. I believe in the integrity and honesty of all nine Justices--all nine of them. They should pay the partisan grandstanding no mind at all. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2023-05-02-pt1-PgS1446-3 | null | 6,162 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now, on Senate business, today will be another busy day on the Senate floor, as we continue confirming more highly qualified judicial nominees to serve on the Federal bench. Yesterday, we confirmed an outstanding circuit judge to a lifetime appointment for the Ninth Circuit. Today, we will continue to build on our efforts to restore balance to the Federal bench by holding votes on three more outstanding nominees. The Senate will hold two votes this morning to advance two district court judges, and, later this afternoon, we will have three votes on President Biden's highly qualified judicial nominees. And members should be aware that I filed cloture last night on two additional judges, and that moving their nominations forward will be a top priority for the Senate this week. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-05-02-pt1-PgS1446 | null | 6,163 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now on entirely different matter, there was a remarkable exchange yesterday when a Russian reporter tried to put false words in Speaker McCarthy's mouth about alleged Republican opposition to helping Ukraine defeat Russian aggression. Well, the Speaker put him in his place and shut him down. He reminded everyone of his ongoing support of aid to Ukraine and of Republicans' commitment to help our friends win. Republicans are the party of American strength, at home and abroad. And that includes standing up to would-be tyrants who are invading sovereign countries, killing innocent people, and putting the core national interests of the United States at risk. Equipping Ukraine to defend itself is a direct investment in America's own national security--our national security. As brave Ukrainians degrade the Russian military on the frontlines, a major threat to Western security and economic prosperity gets weaker. In the meantime, our own defense capabilities are actually getting stronger. A large part of the security assistance appropriated for Ukraine actually funds the production of new cutting-edge capabilities for the U.S. military and supports good-paying jobs for skilled American workers right here at home. Unfortunately, it is the administration whose policies have been slow and halting. Since the beginning of Russia's escalation, the Biden administration had lagged several steps behind the pace of relevance in delivering decisive aid to Ukraine. Every approval of new assistance has required agonizing deliberations and prodding from congressional Republicans and Democrats alike. This was the case with the Stinger and Javelin systems the Ukrainians needed to drive back Russian convoys and Polish fighter jets that stood waiting on the tarmac, with the HIMARS and Harpoons and PATRIOT systems they needed to put the invaders on the back foot and the Abrams tanks they needed to support a counteroffensive and now with the cluster munitions, longer range fires, and fourth-generation fighter jets our friends need to actually turn the tide. At every single mile marker--every one--the Biden administration has dithered--dithered--unnecessarily. It is time for the President to get serious about victory and invest in American strength. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2023-05-02-pt1-PgS1447 | null | 6,164 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Women's Health Protection Act Mr. President, we have sure learned a lot since the Dobbs decision was handed down. Roe v. Wade was controversial, but after 15 years, we had reached something of a balance in terms of what was allowed and what wasn't allowed on a national basis. Then came the Dobbs decision and the repeal--overruling--of Roe v. Wade, and for the first time in the history of the United States, a constitutional right which women had enjoyed for 50 years was removed from the law. It never has happened before. The American people have united together in support of the belief that reproductive rights are a fundamental right and that extremist politicians have no business dictating the healthcare decisions of women and their doctors. Just a few days ago, Republican lawmakers in two States failed to pass restrictive abortion laws, and they were not blue States--far from it: South Carolina and Nebraska. Cheers actually erupted outside the Nebraska Legislature when the proposed abortion ban failed. To some, the failure of these abortion bans in Republican-controlled States may be surprising, but if you have been paying attention over the last year since the Dobbs decision was handed down, it is no surprise. In the months since that decision, at least a dozen States have enacted near-total bans on abortion, and the number of horror stories that are emerging from those States is staggering--stories of rape victims as young as 10 years of age being denied healthcare because of restrictive State laws governing abortion; an 11-year-old victim of sex trafficking also denied an abortion under one of these State laws; stories of women being forced to flee their home States to access basic reproductive care service; stories of pregnant women suffering miscarriages, being turned away by doctors until their lives are at risk because these abortion bans are so vague and so poorly written that healthcare providers are afraid to provide lifesaving care until the women are in an extreme situation. And the laws surrounding abortion--and miscarriage management--seem to be changing almost on a weekly basis. So much confusion and chaos. Now, one of the most striking features of the Dobbs decision itself was the almost complete absence of discussion of one subject. The subject: women. In a 79-page ruling, women received a few paragraphs from Justice Alito on the Supreme Court. This author of the majority opinion defended his disregard for women's lives by arguing it is ``hard for anyone''--Justice Alito said, ``and in particular, for a court--to assess . . . the effect of the abortion right on society and . . . on the lives of women.'' That is from the man who wrote the decision, the Dobbs decision that repealed Roe v. Wade. He said it was kind of difficult to assess the impact it would have on the lives of women. He was sure right about that. Mr. President, perhaps the Court's conservative majority should have paid closer attention to the briefs filed by medical professionals like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association, who gave Justice Alito and the majority on the Supreme Court fair warning about what was going tohappen--an immediate healthcare crisis across America. Sadly, their prediction turned out to be true. Now, last week, as the Presiding Officer will remember, in the Judiciary Committee, we had a historic hearing about the horrific consequences of the Dobbs decision. One of our witnesses, I still remember to this day. It was one of the most compelling pieces of testimony I have ever seen. Her name is Amanda Zurawski. She gave one of the most heartbreaking presentations I had ever heard. Amanda lives in Texas, you see, one of the first States with a near-total ban on abortion that took effect after Dobbs. She endured 18 months of fertility treatments in a desperate attempt so that she and her husband could become pregnant. When she finally did, her husband was over the moon, so excited and so happy. They named their soon-to-be little girl Willow. Last August, in the second trimester of her pregnancy, Amanda didn't feel right. She called her doctor, who told her to come in as quickly as possible. After the exam, Amanda and her husband received a heartbreaking diagnosis: Her cervix had dilated prematurely; the loss of her baby was inevitable. Amanda asked what could be done, what was the right thing to do for the ``respectful passing'' of her baby and to protect herself so that maybe there would be another attempt and she could become pregnant again. To her shock, her doctors in Texas told her that there was nothing they could do because of the State's new anti-abortion law--laws that threaten doctors with fines up to $100,000 and up to 99 years in prison and losing their medical license. Amanda's doctors tried to find another hospital nearby that could possibly help her. Those hospitals all had the same response: Because of Texas's new anti-abortion law, they refused to do anything to provide care for Amanda. She told our committee: People have asked why we didn't get on a plane or in our car to go to a state where the laws aren't so restrictive. But we live in the middle of Texas, and the nearest ``sanctuary'' state is at least an 8-hour drive. Developing sepsis--which can kill quickly--in a car in the middle of the West Texas desert or 30,000 feet above the ground is a death sentence, and it's not a choice we should have had to even consider. So all we could do was wait. She waited 3 agonizing days, developing a raging fever and dangerously low blood pressure. Sepsis had set in. Her husband rushed her to the hospital. Several hours later, her daughter arrived as predicted: stillborn. Amanda spent the next 3 days in intensive care in the hospital fighting for her own life. She has spent the last 8 months battling trauma and depression from this experience, as well as the medical fallout from delayed treatment, including complications which may make it difficult for her ever to bear a child. That is the new law in Texas. It almost killed her. During last week's hearing, we also heard from Dr. Nisha Verma. She is an OB/GYN. She has chosen to stay in practice in Georgia despite knowing that ``Georgia's laws threatened to make [her] a criminal for providing lifesaving care to her patients.'' Dr. Verma told our committee: Imagine looking someone in the eye and saying: ``I have all the skills and the tools to care for you, but our state's politicians have told me I can't [lift a finger.]'' She reminded us that the United States already has the highest maternal mortality rate of any wealthy nation. Restrictive abortion laws, she said, are making pregnancy even more dangerous for American women. Regrettably, some of our Republican colleagues tried to make last week's hearing about something they called ``late-term abortions'' and ``partial-birth abortions,'' both medically inaccurate terms. In their fearmongering, what they neglected to note is that abortions after 21 weeks of pregnancy account for less than 1 percent of abortions in America, according to the Centers for Disease Control. They also failed to acknowledge that in the very rare instance when abortion happens late in pregnancy, it is generally because a woman's life is in danger or a fatal fetal anomaly has been discovered--or because a woman wasn't able to get the abortion earlier due to restrictive State laws. And as Dr. Verma correctly noted, hypotheticals of patients seeking an abortion until the moment of birth ``does not reflect the reality of abortion . . . It simply doesn't happen,'' this doctor said. For nearly 50 years, abortion opponents said their only goal was to return the right to decide abortion laws to the States. It is now clear that that was not true; dismantling Roe v. Wade was always the first step. The real goal is to systematically strip away access to abortion nationwide, and that is exactly what they are trying to do. For example, many congressional Republicans submitted a brief urging one Federal judge in Texas to issue a nationwide injunction blocking the use of a medication abortion pill, mifepristone, a drug the FDA approved more than 20 years ago, found to be safe and effective--safer than Tylenol. Congress needs to stop this chaos. The bill, Women's Health Protection Act, will restore the protection of abortion access across the country, consistent with Roe v. Wade. That testimony about what that young mother went through in Texas was an eye-opener. I couldn't help but think of my own daughter and my family and what I would have done if she was in a situation where she faced death and had to be sicker for the doctors to finally act and save her life. She waited 3 days in that intensive care unit to finally survive and go on with her life, but her life may never be the same. I pray that she will have an opportunity to have another child someday. But it gets down to the bottom line, Mr. President--and I think you understand as well as I do. I am an attorney; I am not a doctor. And if I am asked to make a decision about something as complicated as what to do with a 10-year-old who happens to have been a victim of rape and pregnant, I am going think twice and ask people who know what to do for a living, medically trained people, who can make the right decision for the people who are involved in that process. To sit here in State after State and have these decisions being made--for instance, to say you can't have an abortion anytime after 6 weeks of a pregnancy--I know enough about that experience from my own family experience that many women will never know the answer to that question in the first 6 weeks, and yet the law is being written by politicians and legislators who think they know better. Many of them couldn't consider passing any courses in medical school, but they are going to write the medical law now. In fact, insert into the examination room and emergency room State-elected officials who are going to be hovering over those doctors and threatening them with hundred-thousand-dollar fines and 99 years in prison if they guess wrong. What have we come to in this country? I think the American people understand how desperate we are at this point with the chaos that we face. I can only hope that the election will make a difference. I think it will. I really sense that there is a realignment in this country. The women, in particular, but many families are deciding that the Republicans have just gone too far with the Dobbs decision. And what is happening across this country is not only chaotic, it is immoral. It is immoral to have a young woman like Amanda face death when she was trying to do everything possible to have a baby and be a mother and then have the terrible diagnosis which told her her child was not going to live. That is where we are today. I hope that the Senate Judiciary Committee can continue to bring this item before the American people so they can hear clearly what we face after the Dobbs decision by the Supreme Court. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-02-pt1-PgS1452 | null | 6,165 |
formal | extremist | null | Islamophobic | Women's Health Protection Act Mr. President, we have sure learned a lot since the Dobbs decision was handed down. Roe v. Wade was controversial, but after 15 years, we had reached something of a balance in terms of what was allowed and what wasn't allowed on a national basis. Then came the Dobbs decision and the repeal--overruling--of Roe v. Wade, and for the first time in the history of the United States, a constitutional right which women had enjoyed for 50 years was removed from the law. It never has happened before. The American people have united together in support of the belief that reproductive rights are a fundamental right and that extremist politicians have no business dictating the healthcare decisions of women and their doctors. Just a few days ago, Republican lawmakers in two States failed to pass restrictive abortion laws, and they were not blue States--far from it: South Carolina and Nebraska. Cheers actually erupted outside the Nebraska Legislature when the proposed abortion ban failed. To some, the failure of these abortion bans in Republican-controlled States may be surprising, but if you have been paying attention over the last year since the Dobbs decision was handed down, it is no surprise. In the months since that decision, at least a dozen States have enacted near-total bans on abortion, and the number of horror stories that are emerging from those States is staggering--stories of rape victims as young as 10 years of age being denied healthcare because of restrictive State laws governing abortion; an 11-year-old victim of sex trafficking also denied an abortion under one of these State laws; stories of women being forced to flee their home States to access basic reproductive care service; stories of pregnant women suffering miscarriages, being turned away by doctors until their lives are at risk because these abortion bans are so vague and so poorly written that healthcare providers are afraid to provide lifesaving care until the women are in an extreme situation. And the laws surrounding abortion--and miscarriage management--seem to be changing almost on a weekly basis. So much confusion and chaos. Now, one of the most striking features of the Dobbs decision itself was the almost complete absence of discussion of one subject. The subject: women. In a 79-page ruling, women received a few paragraphs from Justice Alito on the Supreme Court. This author of the majority opinion defended his disregard for women's lives by arguing it is ``hard for anyone''--Justice Alito said, ``and in particular, for a court--to assess . . . the effect of the abortion right on society and . . . on the lives of women.'' That is from the man who wrote the decision, the Dobbs decision that repealed Roe v. Wade. He said it was kind of difficult to assess the impact it would have on the lives of women. He was sure right about that. Mr. President, perhaps the Court's conservative majority should have paid closer attention to the briefs filed by medical professionals like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association, who gave Justice Alito and the majority on the Supreme Court fair warning about what was going tohappen--an immediate healthcare crisis across America. Sadly, their prediction turned out to be true. Now, last week, as the Presiding Officer will remember, in the Judiciary Committee, we had a historic hearing about the horrific consequences of the Dobbs decision. One of our witnesses, I still remember to this day. It was one of the most compelling pieces of testimony I have ever seen. Her name is Amanda Zurawski. She gave one of the most heartbreaking presentations I had ever heard. Amanda lives in Texas, you see, one of the first States with a near-total ban on abortion that took effect after Dobbs. She endured 18 months of fertility treatments in a desperate attempt so that she and her husband could become pregnant. When she finally did, her husband was over the moon, so excited and so happy. They named their soon-to-be little girl Willow. Last August, in the second trimester of her pregnancy, Amanda didn't feel right. She called her doctor, who told her to come in as quickly as possible. After the exam, Amanda and her husband received a heartbreaking diagnosis: Her cervix had dilated prematurely; the loss of her baby was inevitable. Amanda asked what could be done, what was the right thing to do for the ``respectful passing'' of her baby and to protect herself so that maybe there would be another attempt and she could become pregnant again. To her shock, her doctors in Texas told her that there was nothing they could do because of the State's new anti-abortion law--laws that threaten doctors with fines up to $100,000 and up to 99 years in prison and losing their medical license. Amanda's doctors tried to find another hospital nearby that could possibly help her. Those hospitals all had the same response: Because of Texas's new anti-abortion law, they refused to do anything to provide care for Amanda. She told our committee: People have asked why we didn't get on a plane or in our car to go to a state where the laws aren't so restrictive. But we live in the middle of Texas, and the nearest ``sanctuary'' state is at least an 8-hour drive. Developing sepsis--which can kill quickly--in a car in the middle of the West Texas desert or 30,000 feet above the ground is a death sentence, and it's not a choice we should have had to even consider. So all we could do was wait. She waited 3 agonizing days, developing a raging fever and dangerously low blood pressure. Sepsis had set in. Her husband rushed her to the hospital. Several hours later, her daughter arrived as predicted: stillborn. Amanda spent the next 3 days in intensive care in the hospital fighting for her own life. She has spent the last 8 months battling trauma and depression from this experience, as well as the medical fallout from delayed treatment, including complications which may make it difficult for her ever to bear a child. That is the new law in Texas. It almost killed her. During last week's hearing, we also heard from Dr. Nisha Verma. She is an OB/GYN. She has chosen to stay in practice in Georgia despite knowing that ``Georgia's laws threatened to make [her] a criminal for providing lifesaving care to her patients.'' Dr. Verma told our committee: Imagine looking someone in the eye and saying: ``I have all the skills and the tools to care for you, but our state's politicians have told me I can't [lift a finger.]'' She reminded us that the United States already has the highest maternal mortality rate of any wealthy nation. Restrictive abortion laws, she said, are making pregnancy even more dangerous for American women. Regrettably, some of our Republican colleagues tried to make last week's hearing about something they called ``late-term abortions'' and ``partial-birth abortions,'' both medically inaccurate terms. In their fearmongering, what they neglected to note is that abortions after 21 weeks of pregnancy account for less than 1 percent of abortions in America, according to the Centers for Disease Control. They also failed to acknowledge that in the very rare instance when abortion happens late in pregnancy, it is generally because a woman's life is in danger or a fatal fetal anomaly has been discovered--or because a woman wasn't able to get the abortion earlier due to restrictive State laws. And as Dr. Verma correctly noted, hypotheticals of patients seeking an abortion until the moment of birth ``does not reflect the reality of abortion . . . It simply doesn't happen,'' this doctor said. For nearly 50 years, abortion opponents said their only goal was to return the right to decide abortion laws to the States. It is now clear that that was not true; dismantling Roe v. Wade was always the first step. The real goal is to systematically strip away access to abortion nationwide, and that is exactly what they are trying to do. For example, many congressional Republicans submitted a brief urging one Federal judge in Texas to issue a nationwide injunction blocking the use of a medication abortion pill, mifepristone, a drug the FDA approved more than 20 years ago, found to be safe and effective--safer than Tylenol. Congress needs to stop this chaos. The bill, Women's Health Protection Act, will restore the protection of abortion access across the country, consistent with Roe v. Wade. That testimony about what that young mother went through in Texas was an eye-opener. I couldn't help but think of my own daughter and my family and what I would have done if she was in a situation where she faced death and had to be sicker for the doctors to finally act and save her life. She waited 3 days in that intensive care unit to finally survive and go on with her life, but her life may never be the same. I pray that she will have an opportunity to have another child someday. But it gets down to the bottom line, Mr. President--and I think you understand as well as I do. I am an attorney; I am not a doctor. And if I am asked to make a decision about something as complicated as what to do with a 10-year-old who happens to have been a victim of rape and pregnant, I am going think twice and ask people who know what to do for a living, medically trained people, who can make the right decision for the people who are involved in that process. To sit here in State after State and have these decisions being made--for instance, to say you can't have an abortion anytime after 6 weeks of a pregnancy--I know enough about that experience from my own family experience that many women will never know the answer to that question in the first 6 weeks, and yet the law is being written by politicians and legislators who think they know better. Many of them couldn't consider passing any courses in medical school, but they are going to write the medical law now. In fact, insert into the examination room and emergency room State-elected officials who are going to be hovering over those doctors and threatening them with hundred-thousand-dollar fines and 99 years in prison if they guess wrong. What have we come to in this country? I think the American people understand how desperate we are at this point with the chaos that we face. I can only hope that the election will make a difference. I think it will. I really sense that there is a realignment in this country. The women, in particular, but many families are deciding that the Republicans have just gone too far with the Dobbs decision. And what is happening across this country is not only chaotic, it is immoral. It is immoral to have a young woman like Amanda face death when she was trying to do everything possible to have a baby and be a mother and then have the terrible diagnosis which told her her child was not going to live. That is where we are today. I hope that the Senate Judiciary Committee can continue to bring this item before the American people so they can hear clearly what we face after the Dobbs decision by the Supreme Court. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-02-pt1-PgS1452 | null | 6,166 |
formal | Cleveland | null | racist | Tribute to Anna Gokaldas Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor a longtime member of my staff, Anna Gokaldas. Anna has been with our office almost a decade--working on veterans affairs, foreign policy, and defense--making a difference for so many Ohioans and so many of our veterans. Anna's last day with our office is a couple of days from now. She moves on for a new opportunity at Millennium Challenge, where she will be working on something she cares so passionately about: to reduce poverty around the world. They are lucky to have her. Her dedication to public service and public good is unwavering. One of her greatest successes happened last summer when we passed the PACT Act, comprehensive expansion of benefits for veterans who faced toxic exposure in our country's history. Because of Anna and the veterans and advocates she worked with, the PACT Act is law today, named after an Ohioan, Heath Robinson. Thousands of veterans have access to the healthcare they deserve. Because of her work and because this place did it right, this bill passed in August. I remember the President signing it. By January, several hundred thousand veterans--tens of thousands in my State of Ohio--were already getting additional care from the VA because they had one of these 23 illnesses from exposure to these football-field-size burn pits in Iraq and in Afghanistan, especially. That exposure can cause any of these 23 illnesses. If you are diagnosed with one of those illnesses, you immediately get care from the Dayton VA or in Cleveland or in Cincinnati or in Chillicothe or at the Columbus or Mansfield CBOC. It is one example of why Anna is so effective. Veterans brought this issue to her and my staff. She took their concerns seriously. She approached every conversation with care. She went to work. We worked with Members of both parties to find a solution, especially Senator Tester and Senator Moran. Anna never gave up. We got it done. Among staff, Anna is known for problem-solving skills and her ability to connect with Ohio veterans. When the VA recommended closing the Chillicothe VA, Anna fought to ensure it stayed open so veterans in Southwest Ohio could continue to receive care. Anna helped plan roundtables and coordinated with the VA. She got me to spend a lot of time in Chillicothe, talking to Jessica Fee, the head of the union there and others. Together, we got it done. Every year, Anna guided our office through the NDAA process--the bill that funds national defense--with special attention to military bases in Mansfield, Youngstown, Toledo, and Springfield, and special attention to the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton. She has long fought for better mental health services and suicide prevention. She made veterans' issues--that is an area that is, very often, an overlooked priority for the Senate. And one of the reasons that I sit on the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Ag Committee is because these two committees are the least partisan committees in the Senate. You can always reach across the aisle in those two committees--with Senator Thune on agricultural issues, with Senator Tillis on veterans' issues, and others. We get things done, and you know how important that is. On the foreign policy side, Anna always stood up for human rights and democracy and justice around the world. She fought for global health, leading our office's efforts on tuberculosis, which still kills more than a million people a year around the world. We know how to deal with it. We made progress, just not enough. Anna's legacy in our office extends far past her countless legislative wins, making all of this work better. She has pushed every member of our staff to do their best work for the people with whom we serve. Her determination, dedication, and commitment to public service have made a difference for so many. On behalf of everyone in my office and the committee and all those who have had the honor of working alongside of Anna Gokaldas, we will miss you, and we thank you for your service. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-02-pt1-PgS1456 | null | 6,167 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Linda Robertson in honor of her storied career in public service, including as a key member of the Federal Reserve's staff for over 13 years. Her career has touched many of the most important economic events of the past 40 years. Originally from Oklahoma, Linda first came to Washington to work for Congressman Jim Jones. She quickly made her mark working on taxation and finance matters both in his office and for the Committee on Ways and Means. It was in this job that she had a front row seat to the 1986 tax reform effort made famous by books like ``Showdown at Gucci Gulch.'' While continuing her work in Congress during the day, she attended classes at night to earn her master of laws in taxation. Based on her exceptional congressional experience and knowledge of policy, Linda was later nominated and confirmed to serve as Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs and Public Liaison at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Following her service at the Treasury Department, she worked as the top public advocate for Johns Hopkins University and Johns Hopkins Medicine. Linda returned to public service in August 2009 as an assistant to the Federal Reserve Board and head of its congressional liaison office. She began this position at a time of immense challenge for the country and as Congress and our regulatory Agencies worked to stabilize the financial system following the great recession of 2008. From the global financial crisis through the pandemic, Linda has served as a trusted advisor to the Federal Reserve Board and has played an invaluable role in keeping Congress and the public apprised of the Federal Reserve's work to fulfill its mandates on behalf of the American people. Federal Reserve Board Chairs Bernanke, Yellen, and Powell all benefited from Linda's experience and dedication to public service. Linda also returned to Treasury in 2021 to advise Secretary Yellen as she became the first woman to serve as Treasury Secretary. Linda's work was vital last year when we confirmed President Biden's slate of Federal Reserve Board nominees. With her countless hours of hard work, we were able to confirm a full Federal Reserve Board, something that had not been done in nearly a decade. Linda's lasting legacy also includes those that she worked with and mentored throughout her career. Those that had the privilege of learning from her wisdom have gone on to fill positions throughout Washington. One of Linda's former interns from her time at the Treasury Department is my scheduler, Diana Baron, also from Oklahoma, who has been with me on my staff for nearly 25 years. I am sure many of my colleagues have similar stories. Her commitment to public service, formidable talent, and immense knowledge will be missed by those at the Federal Reserve and many of us on Capitol Hill, particularly those of us on the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. I wish Linda much success in her next chapter which--without hearings to prep for or bills to review--I expect will include ample time spent with family and friends. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2023-05-02-pt1-PgS1459 | null | 6,168 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Linda Robertson in honor of her storied career in public service, including as a key member of the Federal Reserve's staff for over 13 years. Her career has touched many of the most important economic events of the past 40 years. Originally from Oklahoma, Linda first came to Washington to work for Congressman Jim Jones. She quickly made her mark working on taxation and finance matters both in his office and for the Committee on Ways and Means. It was in this job that she had a front row seat to the 1986 tax reform effort made famous by books like ``Showdown at Gucci Gulch.'' While continuing her work in Congress during the day, she attended classes at night to earn her master of laws in taxation. Based on her exceptional congressional experience and knowledge of policy, Linda was later nominated and confirmed to serve as Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs and Public Liaison at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Following her service at the Treasury Department, she worked as the top public advocate for Johns Hopkins University and Johns Hopkins Medicine. Linda returned to public service in August 2009 as an assistant to the Federal Reserve Board and head of its congressional liaison office. She began this position at a time of immense challenge for the country and as Congress and our regulatory Agencies worked to stabilize the financial system following the great recession of 2008. From the global financial crisis through the pandemic, Linda has served as a trusted advisor to the Federal Reserve Board and has played an invaluable role in keeping Congress and the public apprised of the Federal Reserve's work to fulfill its mandates on behalf of the American people. Federal Reserve Board Chairs Bernanke, Yellen, and Powell all benefited from Linda's experience and dedication to public service. Linda also returned to Treasury in 2021 to advise Secretary Yellen as she became the first woman to serve as Treasury Secretary. Linda's work was vital last year when we confirmed President Biden's slate of Federal Reserve Board nominees. With her countless hours of hard work, we were able to confirm a full Federal Reserve Board, something that had not been done in nearly a decade. Linda's lasting legacy also includes those that she worked with and mentored throughout her career. Those that had the privilege of learning from her wisdom have gone on to fill positions throughout Washington. One of Linda's former interns from her time at the Treasury Department is my scheduler, Diana Baron, also from Oklahoma, who has been with me on my staff for nearly 25 years. I am sure many of my colleagues have similar stories. Her commitment to public service, formidable talent, and immense knowledge will be missed by those at the Federal Reserve and many of us on Capitol Hill, particularly those of us on the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. I wish Linda much success in her next chapter which--without hearings to prep for or bills to review--I expect will include ample time spent with family and friends. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2023-05-02-pt1-PgS1459 | null | 6,169 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | The following petitions and memorials were laid before the Senate and were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated: POM-16. A joint memorial adopted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho opposing the EPA-proposed rules that circumvent science and invalidate Idaho's water quality standards based on the flawed and elusive premise of 19th century water quality standards for Idaho waters in 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. House Joint Memorial No. 4 Whereas, Idaho submitted new and revised Human Health Water Quality Criteria (HHWQC) rules (docket number 58-0102-1201) to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on December 16, 2016, after years of extensive engagement with stakeholders, data collection, and final approval of the Idaho Legislature; and Whereas, on April 4, 2019, the EPA approved Idaho's new HHWQC for toxics and other water quality standards criteria; and Whereas, Idaho is the only state in the union to complete a comprehensive longitudinal study funded by the state to determine the actual fish consumption rate (FCR) of its citizens, which was conducted by Boise State University; and Whereas, Idaho acted in accordance with the United States Clean Water Act in utilizing the best available scientific data to apply a FCR within the water quality formula to establish its HHWQC as part of its overall water quality standards (WQS); and Whereas, the EPA recently published new proposed nationwide regulations (at 87 Fed Reg. 74361 (December 5, 2022)) that would effectively establish an unrealistic and unattainable WQS for state waters that are not based on actual FCR but on Indian treaties approved in the l9th century; and Whereas, the federal regulation notice completely ignores the requirement of Executive Order 13132 for Federalism implications, instead stating that the rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the federal government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among levels of government; and Whereas, the federal regulation notice economic analysis states that there will potentially be only incremental administrative burdens and costs, but it does not establish any requirements for regulated entities. However, it could lead to additional compliance costs with new permit limits, which the EPA is unable to provide cost estimates for; and Whereas, it is clear that the EPA-proposed rules will circumvent and undo the scientifically established WQS in Idaho, require the establishment of unattainable standards in an effort to take control of Idaho's waters in violation of the Clean Water Act's directive that states retain primary responsibility to control pollution and develop land and water resources for state waters, and violate the long- established principle of federalism. Now, therefore, be it Resolved, By the members of the First Regular Session of the Sixty-seventh Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring therein, that the people of the State of Idaho oppose the EPA-proposed rules that circumvent science and invalidate Idaho's WQS based on the flawed and elusive premise of 19th century water quality standards for Idaho waters in 2023. Idaho will defend its scientifically based standards in court if necessary; and be it further Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, to the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States, to the Governor of the State of Idaho, and to the Attorney General of the State of Idaho. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-02-pt1-PgS1461 | null | 6,170 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Tester, Mrs. Capito, and Ms. Baldwin): S. 1397. A bill to modify the Federal TRIO programs; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2023-05-02-pt1-PgS1465-2 | null | 6,171 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Tester, Mrs. Capito, and Ms. Baldwin): S. 1397. A bill to modify the Federal TRIO programs; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2023-05-02-pt1-PgS1465 | null | 6,172 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself and Mr. Murphy) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 189 Whereas, on Saturday, April 8, 2023, the Quinnipiac University men's hockey team (referred to in this preamble as the ``Quinnipiac Bobcats'') won the 2023 National Collegiate Athletic Association (referred to in this preamble as ``NCAA'') Men's Hockey Championship with a 3-2 win over the Minnesota Golden Gophers, at Amalie Arena in Tampa, Florida; Whereas the 2023 national championship is the first national championship for the Quinnipiac Bobcats; Whereas the Quinnipiac Bobcats have demonstrated remarkably consistent success in the past decade, and have made the NCAA Championship tournament in 8 of the last 10 seasons; Whereas Jacob Quillan was named the Most Outstanding Player of the 2023 NCAA Championship tournament, finishing the NCAA Championship tournament with 5 goals and setting a new Quinnipiac University record for most goals scored in a single tournament; Whereas Rand Pecknold, the head coach of the Quinnipiac Bobcats, has led the team for 29 years and transformed the Quinnipiac Bobcats from a Division II program to a National Division I powerhouse; and Whereas the National Championship was played in front of 20,000 people in Tampa, Florida, and was the most watched ``Frozen Four Final'' game in more than 10 years: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) commends the Quinnipiac University men's hockey team for winning the 2023 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Men's Hockey Championship; (2) congratulates the fans, students, and faculty of Quinnipiac University; and (3) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate transmits an enrolled copy of this resolution to-- (A) the President of Quinnipiac University, Dr. Judy Olian; and (B) the head coach of the Quinnipiac University men's hockey team, Rand Pecknold. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-02-pt1-PgS1466 | null | 6,173 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | ``WORLD QUANTUM DAY'' Mr. YOUNG (for himself and Ms. Hassan) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 190 Whereas quantum physics describes nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles; Whereas ``World Quantum Day'' is celebrated by scientists in more than 65 countries to promote public understanding of quantum science and technology around the world; Whereas the United States has recognized quantum information science and technology as a key technology area for economic competition; Whereas quantum physics helps us to understand and develop technologies critical to everyday life, such as GPS, semiconductors, and lasers; Whereas quantum information science is a multidisciplinary field, bridging science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (referred to in this preamble as ``STEM''); Whereas STEM is a critical part of education for children, and aptitude in STEM is essential for a knowledge-based society and for economic competition; Whereas the United States needs to reinforce STEM education for all students in order to better prepare children for future careers in emerging technologies, including quantum, to succeed in a 21st-century economy; Whereas STEM can be a fun and interesting part of education for children, and learning about quantum principles of superposition and entanglement can be an engaging way to teach children and attract the children to study STEM; Whereas the Planck constant is a fundamental constant governing quantum physics, which is used to define universal measurements such as the kilogram; and Whereas the rounded first significant digits of the Planck constant are 4.14, and thus April 14 of each year is internationally recognized as ``World Quantum Day'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) supports the goals of ``World Quantum Day'' to recognize and celebrate the role that quantum physics plays in our daily lives; and (2) encourages schools and educators to observe the day with appropriate activities that teach students about quantum physics and engage students in the study of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-02-pt1-PgS1467 | null | 6,174 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I want to speak about the looming debt crisis, the fact that within 30 days, there is a real and substantial likelihood that America will do something that America has never done; and that is fail to pay its bills in full and on time. There is a lot of discussion about the debt. It is $31 trillion. There is very little discussion about what that debt is, who owns that debt, and what the implications are to all of us--the people we represent, our State and local governments, our private institutions, and our economy--if, in fact, we do the unthinkable and default on the debt. Of that $31 trillion debt, $8 trillion is held by governmental entities; that includes the Federal Reserve, two Social Security trust funds, the Medicare insurance trust, and the U.S. military retirement plan. Anything we do to jeopardize the value of those Treasury bills--where 100 cents is what they are worth on the dollar--compromises the security that Americans depend on from those trust funds. The $24 trillion in treasuries held by the public includes $3 trillion held by individuals, by households, by for-profit and not-for-profit entities, and by endowments. If we jeopardize that $1 for $1 risk-free asset, it means those individuals who own the Treasury bond as part of their portfolio lose value. And $2.8 trillion is held by money market mutual funds. Every one of our constituents knows what those are. Most of our constituents have money deposited in a money market account. They absolutely believe that they are going to get $1 out for every $1 they put in. We jeopardize that Treasury bill by defaulting on our debt. They may get 95 cents or 90 cents. That is real havoc and real pain for so many Americans. And $2 trillion is held by banks. That is the money that they have to guarantee the deposits. If we think we have an issue with the run on the banks of First Republic and SVB, wait until this happens and there is a run on these banks who, because of inaction that this Congress took, has a vast and cataclysmic reduction in the value of their deposits. And $1.5 trillion is held by various State and local governments--that is the town you live in; that is the town I live in--where that is set aside to help their citizens. They lose value on those securities. They can do less for water and sewer, for schools, and roads in their own communities. And $1.1 trillion is held by private pension funds; that is, folks who have saved and put into their pension fund for their retirement. If that asset, the Treasury bond, declines in value because of the default, their retirement is in jeopardy. And $7 trillion is held by foreign central banks and foreign investors. That helps us because they help us keep our interest rates down, and they do that because the dollar in is a dollar, plus interest, out. That is jeopardized by this reckless plan to default on our debt as a leverage device to get things totally outside of what that debt is. No. 1, Treasurys are the bedrock of our financial system because they are viewed as a safe asset, and they have been safe ever since the founding of our country. Equally important, Treasury bills are considered risk-free. You put that dollar in, you buy a Treasury, you are going to get that dollar back absolutely, plus the interest on the coupon. Third, Treasurys are the device in our willingness to pay, unquestioned, that has made the dollar the reserve currency of the world. I go back to what I said earlier--$7 trillion are owned by foreign banks. They put their money here because they have total and complete confidence that it is safe. If we default on our debt, we lose that status, they lose that assurance, and we in this country start paying higher interest rates. There is real harm to individuals as well, as the economy goes through a cataclysm of the first-time default in the history of the country. Analysts who have looked at this say a typical worker near retirement--and I am including folks in Vermont--would see a $20,000 reduction in what they have available for retirement. The average new 30-year mortgage would be increased in cost over the life of its mortgage by $130,000. Think of what you could do with that to help your child with an education. It would become much harder to borrow. The national debt--the national debt--would increase by $850 billion. So the folks who are advocating default as a way of ``cutting down spending'' are doing the single most destructive thing that they could do that will result in increasing spending. So this notion of defaulting on our debt, we are using that as a tactic to get something completely unrelated to what we all know is the obligation to pay our bills. A confident country always pays its bills. It is a disaster for the economy and has long-term devastating implications for everyday Americans as well as our reputation and strength as a country. This is not a custom. It is embedded in our DNA as a country that we pay our bills in full and on time, and it started just after we became an independent country. We were broke. Alexander Hamilton, as you know, was our first Treasury Secretary. He had to make a decision. We had borrowed a lot of money to prosecute our revolution. Those bonds that represented that borrowed money were worth pennies on the dollar. The question for Alexander Hamilton was, pay pennies on the dollar or pay 100 cents on the dollar. Despite the fact that this was an incredible hardship, Alexander Hamilton and our government then made the decision that those war bonds were going to be repaid in full. The benefit of that to us was that we established, as a country, that we were safe,we were sound, and we were reliable. And no matter what the circumstances were, if we owed the money, we paid the money that was owed; we paid it in full; and we paid it on time. The benefits to our country and to us as individuals over the generations where we have kept that commitment have been incalculable. So the notion that we should put that in jeopardy and even threaten not to pay our bills is something that has never, ever happened before in this country and should never happen. On this question of negotiation, let me ask the question: Why would President Biden--why would any President, Republican or Democrat--negotiate when the effect of that is to threaten the pension deposits of the people we represent? Why would the President--any President--negotiate when the outcome of that negotiation threatens your money market deposits? Why would this President--or any President--negotiate when the outcome of that negotiation would weaken our pension funds, where that negotiation--if it comes out the way the proponents of default as a tactic wish--is going to make it really tough on everyday people: our small businesses, our local governments, and our savings for our kids' education? We pay our bills in full and on time. That is what the United States of America has always done. That is what the United States of America must always do. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WELCH | Senate | CREC-2023-05-02-pt1-PgS1468-3 | null | 6,175 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I want to speak about the looming debt crisis, the fact that within 30 days, there is a real and substantial likelihood that America will do something that America has never done; and that is fail to pay its bills in full and on time. There is a lot of discussion about the debt. It is $31 trillion. There is very little discussion about what that debt is, who owns that debt, and what the implications are to all of us--the people we represent, our State and local governments, our private institutions, and our economy--if, in fact, we do the unthinkable and default on the debt. Of that $31 trillion debt, $8 trillion is held by governmental entities; that includes the Federal Reserve, two Social Security trust funds, the Medicare insurance trust, and the U.S. military retirement plan. Anything we do to jeopardize the value of those Treasury bills--where 100 cents is what they are worth on the dollar--compromises the security that Americans depend on from those trust funds. The $24 trillion in treasuries held by the public includes $3 trillion held by individuals, by households, by for-profit and not-for-profit entities, and by endowments. If we jeopardize that $1 for $1 risk-free asset, it means those individuals who own the Treasury bond as part of their portfolio lose value. And $2.8 trillion is held by money market mutual funds. Every one of our constituents knows what those are. Most of our constituents have money deposited in a money market account. They absolutely believe that they are going to get $1 out for every $1 they put in. We jeopardize that Treasury bill by defaulting on our debt. They may get 95 cents or 90 cents. That is real havoc and real pain for so many Americans. And $2 trillion is held by banks. That is the money that they have to guarantee the deposits. If we think we have an issue with the run on the banks of First Republic and SVB, wait until this happens and there is a run on these banks who, because of inaction that this Congress took, has a vast and cataclysmic reduction in the value of their deposits. And $1.5 trillion is held by various State and local governments--that is the town you live in; that is the town I live in--where that is set aside to help their citizens. They lose value on those securities. They can do less for water and sewer, for schools, and roads in their own communities. And $1.1 trillion is held by private pension funds; that is, folks who have saved and put into their pension fund for their retirement. If that asset, the Treasury bond, declines in value because of the default, their retirement is in jeopardy. And $7 trillion is held by foreign central banks and foreign investors. That helps us because they help us keep our interest rates down, and they do that because the dollar in is a dollar, plus interest, out. That is jeopardized by this reckless plan to default on our debt as a leverage device to get things totally outside of what that debt is. No. 1, Treasurys are the bedrock of our financial system because they are viewed as a safe asset, and they have been safe ever since the founding of our country. Equally important, Treasury bills are considered risk-free. You put that dollar in, you buy a Treasury, you are going to get that dollar back absolutely, plus the interest on the coupon. Third, Treasurys are the device in our willingness to pay, unquestioned, that has made the dollar the reserve currency of the world. I go back to what I said earlier--$7 trillion are owned by foreign banks. They put their money here because they have total and complete confidence that it is safe. If we default on our debt, we lose that status, they lose that assurance, and we in this country start paying higher interest rates. There is real harm to individuals as well, as the economy goes through a cataclysm of the first-time default in the history of the country. Analysts who have looked at this say a typical worker near retirement--and I am including folks in Vermont--would see a $20,000 reduction in what they have available for retirement. The average new 30-year mortgage would be increased in cost over the life of its mortgage by $130,000. Think of what you could do with that to help your child with an education. It would become much harder to borrow. The national debt--the national debt--would increase by $850 billion. So the folks who are advocating default as a way of ``cutting down spending'' are doing the single most destructive thing that they could do that will result in increasing spending. So this notion of defaulting on our debt, we are using that as a tactic to get something completely unrelated to what we all know is the obligation to pay our bills. A confident country always pays its bills. It is a disaster for the economy and has long-term devastating implications for everyday Americans as well as our reputation and strength as a country. This is not a custom. It is embedded in our DNA as a country that we pay our bills in full and on time, and it started just after we became an independent country. We were broke. Alexander Hamilton, as you know, was our first Treasury Secretary. He had to make a decision. We had borrowed a lot of money to prosecute our revolution. Those bonds that represented that borrowed money were worth pennies on the dollar. The question for Alexander Hamilton was, pay pennies on the dollar or pay 100 cents on the dollar. Despite the fact that this was an incredible hardship, Alexander Hamilton and our government then made the decision that those war bonds were going to be repaid in full. The benefit of that to us was that we established, as a country, that we were safe,we were sound, and we were reliable. And no matter what the circumstances were, if we owed the money, we paid the money that was owed; we paid it in full; and we paid it on time. The benefits to our country and to us as individuals over the generations where we have kept that commitment have been incalculable. So the notion that we should put that in jeopardy and even threaten not to pay our bills is something that has never, ever happened before in this country and should never happen. On this question of negotiation, let me ask the question: Why would President Biden--why would any President, Republican or Democrat--negotiate when the effect of that is to threaten the pension deposits of the people we represent? Why would the President--any President--negotiate when the outcome of that negotiation threatens your money market deposits? Why would this President--or any President--negotiate when the outcome of that negotiation would weaken our pension funds, where that negotiation--if it comes out the way the proponents of default as a tactic wish--is going to make it really tough on everyday people: our small businesses, our local governments, and our savings for our kids' education? We pay our bills in full and on time. That is what the United States of America has always done. That is what the United States of America must always do. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WELCH | Senate | CREC-2023-05-02-pt1-PgS1468-3 | null | 6,176 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I want to speak about the looming debt crisis, the fact that within 30 days, there is a real and substantial likelihood that America will do something that America has never done; and that is fail to pay its bills in full and on time. There is a lot of discussion about the debt. It is $31 trillion. There is very little discussion about what that debt is, who owns that debt, and what the implications are to all of us--the people we represent, our State and local governments, our private institutions, and our economy--if, in fact, we do the unthinkable and default on the debt. Of that $31 trillion debt, $8 trillion is held by governmental entities; that includes the Federal Reserve, two Social Security trust funds, the Medicare insurance trust, and the U.S. military retirement plan. Anything we do to jeopardize the value of those Treasury bills--where 100 cents is what they are worth on the dollar--compromises the security that Americans depend on from those trust funds. The $24 trillion in treasuries held by the public includes $3 trillion held by individuals, by households, by for-profit and not-for-profit entities, and by endowments. If we jeopardize that $1 for $1 risk-free asset, it means those individuals who own the Treasury bond as part of their portfolio lose value. And $2.8 trillion is held by money market mutual funds. Every one of our constituents knows what those are. Most of our constituents have money deposited in a money market account. They absolutely believe that they are going to get $1 out for every $1 they put in. We jeopardize that Treasury bill by defaulting on our debt. They may get 95 cents or 90 cents. That is real havoc and real pain for so many Americans. And $2 trillion is held by banks. That is the money that they have to guarantee the deposits. If we think we have an issue with the run on the banks of First Republic and SVB, wait until this happens and there is a run on these banks who, because of inaction that this Congress took, has a vast and cataclysmic reduction in the value of their deposits. And $1.5 trillion is held by various State and local governments--that is the town you live in; that is the town I live in--where that is set aside to help their citizens. They lose value on those securities. They can do less for water and sewer, for schools, and roads in their own communities. And $1.1 trillion is held by private pension funds; that is, folks who have saved and put into their pension fund for their retirement. If that asset, the Treasury bond, declines in value because of the default, their retirement is in jeopardy. And $7 trillion is held by foreign central banks and foreign investors. That helps us because they help us keep our interest rates down, and they do that because the dollar in is a dollar, plus interest, out. That is jeopardized by this reckless plan to default on our debt as a leverage device to get things totally outside of what that debt is. No. 1, Treasurys are the bedrock of our financial system because they are viewed as a safe asset, and they have been safe ever since the founding of our country. Equally important, Treasury bills are considered risk-free. You put that dollar in, you buy a Treasury, you are going to get that dollar back absolutely, plus the interest on the coupon. Third, Treasurys are the device in our willingness to pay, unquestioned, that has made the dollar the reserve currency of the world. I go back to what I said earlier--$7 trillion are owned by foreign banks. They put their money here because they have total and complete confidence that it is safe. If we default on our debt, we lose that status, they lose that assurance, and we in this country start paying higher interest rates. There is real harm to individuals as well, as the economy goes through a cataclysm of the first-time default in the history of the country. Analysts who have looked at this say a typical worker near retirement--and I am including folks in Vermont--would see a $20,000 reduction in what they have available for retirement. The average new 30-year mortgage would be increased in cost over the life of its mortgage by $130,000. Think of what you could do with that to help your child with an education. It would become much harder to borrow. The national debt--the national debt--would increase by $850 billion. So the folks who are advocating default as a way of ``cutting down spending'' are doing the single most destructive thing that they could do that will result in increasing spending. So this notion of defaulting on our debt, we are using that as a tactic to get something completely unrelated to what we all know is the obligation to pay our bills. A confident country always pays its bills. It is a disaster for the economy and has long-term devastating implications for everyday Americans as well as our reputation and strength as a country. This is not a custom. It is embedded in our DNA as a country that we pay our bills in full and on time, and it started just after we became an independent country. We were broke. Alexander Hamilton, as you know, was our first Treasury Secretary. He had to make a decision. We had borrowed a lot of money to prosecute our revolution. Those bonds that represented that borrowed money were worth pennies on the dollar. The question for Alexander Hamilton was, pay pennies on the dollar or pay 100 cents on the dollar. Despite the fact that this was an incredible hardship, Alexander Hamilton and our government then made the decision that those war bonds were going to be repaid in full. The benefit of that to us was that we established, as a country, that we were safe,we were sound, and we were reliable. And no matter what the circumstances were, if we owed the money, we paid the money that was owed; we paid it in full; and we paid it on time. The benefits to our country and to us as individuals over the generations where we have kept that commitment have been incalculable. So the notion that we should put that in jeopardy and even threaten not to pay our bills is something that has never, ever happened before in this country and should never happen. On this question of negotiation, let me ask the question: Why would President Biden--why would any President, Republican or Democrat--negotiate when the effect of that is to threaten the pension deposits of the people we represent? Why would the President--any President--negotiate when the outcome of that negotiation threatens your money market deposits? Why would this President--or any President--negotiate when the outcome of that negotiation would weaken our pension funds, where that negotiation--if it comes out the way the proponents of default as a tactic wish--is going to make it really tough on everyday people: our small businesses, our local governments, and our savings for our kids' education? We pay our bills in full and on time. That is what the United States of America has always done. That is what the United States of America must always do. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WELCH | Senate | CREC-2023-05-02-pt1-PgS1468-3 | null | 6,177 |
formal | echo | null | antisemitic | The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer: Let us pray. Eternal Father, strong to save, whose arms have bound the restless waves, let Your still, small voice echo down time's corridors to renew our lawmakers and to lift their vision of one Nation guided by Your wisdom. Inspire them to dedicate themselves to eternal values and to be unafraid of the consequences of following the highest standards they know. Lord, guide them by Your living Word, as You infuse them with the spirit of service. Help them to see that nothing they do can separate them from Your love. Do for them, as You have promised, more than they can ask or imagine. We pray in Your Holy Name. Amen. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-03-pt1-PgS1471-2 | null | 6,178 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | China Mr. President, later today, I will join my colleagues and committee chairs at a press conference to talk about the next steps in the Senate's effort to outcompete the Chinese Government and preserve America's global leadership in the 21st century. The Democratic-led Senate has done some important bipartisan work to outcompete the Chinese Communist Party in the last few years. The infrastructure, CHIPS and Science, and the omnibus bill all did some in that regard. But we all know we can't stop there. We have to build on this progress. This work is critical to our national security. It won't be enough to outcompete the Xi regime in any single area. We must be ready to compete with all of them on all these fronts, and that will require comprehensive and bipartisan legislation. We must not aid and abet the Chinese Government's development of advanced technologies--like microchips, 5G, AI, quantum computing, and more--that will shape the course of this century. We must limit investment capital from flowing to the Xi regime--the Chinese Government--and prevent them from taking advantage of America's critical assets. We must continue in investing in our workforce and other key technology areas that drive American innovation. We must strengthen our economic and military alliances and partnerships around the world to constrain Chinese potential aggression. The Chinese Government is not constraining itself in its pursuit to dominate the 21st century, and if we in America were to rest on our laurels, if we let the CCP beat us, it would have certain consequences for the world's democratic nations. The United States cannot afford to cede its leadership to governments opposed to democracy and individual liberty. We cannot let authoritarianism call the shots in the 21st century. So that is why this bipartisan effort in the Senate will be so important. The Senate has already shown that both sides are capable of working together on this most important issue, and I thank my colleagues who will join me at our press conference later this afternoon. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-03-pt1-PgS1472 | null | 6,179 |
formal | coincidence | null | antisemitic | Medical Research Let me switch to another topic. One of the most insidious diagnoses that a person can get is to learn that they have brain cancer, glioblastoma. There are 40,000 Americans each year who are diagnosed with brain cancer. It usually gives them 2 years to live when they receive that diagnosis--14,000 Americans each year. Ironically--coincidentally--it seems to have touched this body more than most. It was glioblastoma that took the life of Teddy Kennedy and John McCain and one of our great friends in the Democratic cloakroom, Tim Mitchell. I don't know why. I don't know if that is just a coincidence, but it certainly drove home to all of us what a serious diagnosis this is--glioblastoma, brain cancer. I am going to delve into territory here where my education has not prepared me. I am a liberal arts major and have a law degree. I will be talking a little about science, but, luckily, I will be reading it to make sure I get it right. One of the real obstacles to treating brain cancer is what is known as the blood-brain barrier. You can give--inject--a medicine into an ordinary person, and it will flow through their veins, but it won't get into the brain. So the treatment of many brain cancers is very basic--surgery--to try to remove the tumor with surgery. But the problem is, of course, surgery can't capture every errant cancer cell that might be flowing through the brain, and eventually, the brain cancer overcomes even surgical attempts. So there has always been a barrier, the blood-brain barrier. The treatment has been dealing with and trying to find a way to get into the brain with chemotherapy. The goodnews is that this morning, it was announced that Northwestern University--which I am proud to represent in the city of Chicago--has made some breakthroughs. If you will bear with me for a moment, I want to make sure I state this properly: For the first time, previously unusable chemotherapy drugs reached brain tumors in humans after a cutting-edge procedure at Northwestern University team [in Chicago]. Doctors achieved the breakthrough with an innovative mix of ultrasound and microbubbles that opened the blood-brain barrier to allow the drugs to pass through. Dr. Adam Sonabend, one of the co-lead investigators, said: This is a starting point to open the doors for . . . 95% of drugs that are usually not [even] considered for treating brain diseases. The Northwestern team released a report on the use of the procedure to treat 17 patients with glioblastoma, the most common and malignant form of brain cancer that has been viewed as incurable. The treatment led to a four- to sixfold increase in drug concentrations in the patients' brains, the researchers [said]. Dr. Sonabend goes on to explain the situation: The blood-brain barrier that blocks many drugs used to treat cancer also blocks the dye that they were using to see if they could finally go through with this procedure. Dr. Sonabend said when he injected the dye while using the new ultrasound procedure, the dye appeared first in the patient's blood vessels, but then it passed the blood-brain barrier and spread into the brain. The patient's brain lit up on the x ray that was taken during this procedure to show the effectiveness of this approach. Dr. Roger Stupp, chief of neurooncology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine also helped to lead the project. He said that ``This is the first trial that has taken it to the next level with chemotherapy drugs'' that you ordinarily could not use for brain tumors. Dr. Sonabend said: ``In glioblastoma patients, cancer cells scattered through the brain surrounding the tumor inevitably linger after surgery. They have been impossible to get to . . . '' Now we have an avenue that might be promising to start dealing in more effective ways, not only with brain cancer but also with Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. It is amazing to me. It literally made my day to read that story, that these researchers funded by the National Institutes of Health here in Washington may have finally come through with the ultimate breakthrough that will allow us to treat brain cancer more effectively. Can you imagine the hope this creates in the hearts and minds of so many families who have a victim of brain cancer in their family? Now why do I raise this on the floor other than to tell you, I think, a fascinating and important story? I do it because it is a political issue. We just heard the Republican leader of the Senate come forward and tell us that he supports the proposal by the House Republicans on budget cuts. Do you know what the House Republican budget does to medical research at the NIH? Let me read it to you. They propose ending the bipartisan commitment to the National Institutes of Health by cutting more than $10 billion in 2024. That is 25 percent of the budget for medical research and more than $100 billion over the next 10 years. That will shutter hundreds of labs across the country, lead to fewer drugs being developed for cancer, diabetes, serious mental illness, and other devastating conditions. It will decimate American biotechnology innovation and economic growth. Sadly, it will allow China to become the global leader in biomedical R&D. So when we talk about the budget here and budget cuts and they say: We are just going to cut $10 billion, we have got to step back and say: Well, what does that do for medical research in America? Take a step backwards. The hard bipartisan work that brought us to $40 billion is wiped away overnight. Researchers like those at Northwestern may lose heart and worry whether or not there is enough money to continue their research projects and innovation. What will we lose in terms of quality of life? We will lose the opportunity to come up with the cures that people count on. That is why this means so much to me. It is a small part of the cuts that have been proposed by the Republicans in the House, but it is the part that troubles me the most. We have got to keep our commitment to medical research for the good of this Nation and for the families that count on us to make certain we come up with new cures. We are blessed in America to have the best researchers on Earth. I would take them over any other country, and most Americans would. But are we going to stand by them, or are we going to make the deep cuts in areas like medical research as part of this political debate? | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-03-pt1-PgS1473-3 | null | 6,180 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Medical Research Let me switch to another topic. One of the most insidious diagnoses that a person can get is to learn that they have brain cancer, glioblastoma. There are 40,000 Americans each year who are diagnosed with brain cancer. It usually gives them 2 years to live when they receive that diagnosis--14,000 Americans each year. Ironically--coincidentally--it seems to have touched this body more than most. It was glioblastoma that took the life of Teddy Kennedy and John McCain and one of our great friends in the Democratic cloakroom, Tim Mitchell. I don't know why. I don't know if that is just a coincidence, but it certainly drove home to all of us what a serious diagnosis this is--glioblastoma, brain cancer. I am going to delve into territory here where my education has not prepared me. I am a liberal arts major and have a law degree. I will be talking a little about science, but, luckily, I will be reading it to make sure I get it right. One of the real obstacles to treating brain cancer is what is known as the blood-brain barrier. You can give--inject--a medicine into an ordinary person, and it will flow through their veins, but it won't get into the brain. So the treatment of many brain cancers is very basic--surgery--to try to remove the tumor with surgery. But the problem is, of course, surgery can't capture every errant cancer cell that might be flowing through the brain, and eventually, the brain cancer overcomes even surgical attempts. So there has always been a barrier, the blood-brain barrier. The treatment has been dealing with and trying to find a way to get into the brain with chemotherapy. The goodnews is that this morning, it was announced that Northwestern University--which I am proud to represent in the city of Chicago--has made some breakthroughs. If you will bear with me for a moment, I want to make sure I state this properly: For the first time, previously unusable chemotherapy drugs reached brain tumors in humans after a cutting-edge procedure at Northwestern University team [in Chicago]. Doctors achieved the breakthrough with an innovative mix of ultrasound and microbubbles that opened the blood-brain barrier to allow the drugs to pass through. Dr. Adam Sonabend, one of the co-lead investigators, said: This is a starting point to open the doors for . . . 95% of drugs that are usually not [even] considered for treating brain diseases. The Northwestern team released a report on the use of the procedure to treat 17 patients with glioblastoma, the most common and malignant form of brain cancer that has been viewed as incurable. The treatment led to a four- to sixfold increase in drug concentrations in the patients' brains, the researchers [said]. Dr. Sonabend goes on to explain the situation: The blood-brain barrier that blocks many drugs used to treat cancer also blocks the dye that they were using to see if they could finally go through with this procedure. Dr. Sonabend said when he injected the dye while using the new ultrasound procedure, the dye appeared first in the patient's blood vessels, but then it passed the blood-brain barrier and spread into the brain. The patient's brain lit up on the x ray that was taken during this procedure to show the effectiveness of this approach. Dr. Roger Stupp, chief of neurooncology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine also helped to lead the project. He said that ``This is the first trial that has taken it to the next level with chemotherapy drugs'' that you ordinarily could not use for brain tumors. Dr. Sonabend said: ``In glioblastoma patients, cancer cells scattered through the brain surrounding the tumor inevitably linger after surgery. They have been impossible to get to . . . '' Now we have an avenue that might be promising to start dealing in more effective ways, not only with brain cancer but also with Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. It is amazing to me. It literally made my day to read that story, that these researchers funded by the National Institutes of Health here in Washington may have finally come through with the ultimate breakthrough that will allow us to treat brain cancer more effectively. Can you imagine the hope this creates in the hearts and minds of so many families who have a victim of brain cancer in their family? Now why do I raise this on the floor other than to tell you, I think, a fascinating and important story? I do it because it is a political issue. We just heard the Republican leader of the Senate come forward and tell us that he supports the proposal by the House Republicans on budget cuts. Do you know what the House Republican budget does to medical research at the NIH? Let me read it to you. They propose ending the bipartisan commitment to the National Institutes of Health by cutting more than $10 billion in 2024. That is 25 percent of the budget for medical research and more than $100 billion over the next 10 years. That will shutter hundreds of labs across the country, lead to fewer drugs being developed for cancer, diabetes, serious mental illness, and other devastating conditions. It will decimate American biotechnology innovation and economic growth. Sadly, it will allow China to become the global leader in biomedical R&D. So when we talk about the budget here and budget cuts and they say: We are just going to cut $10 billion, we have got to step back and say: Well, what does that do for medical research in America? Take a step backwards. The hard bipartisan work that brought us to $40 billion is wiped away overnight. Researchers like those at Northwestern may lose heart and worry whether or not there is enough money to continue their research projects and innovation. What will we lose in terms of quality of life? We will lose the opportunity to come up with the cures that people count on. That is why this means so much to me. It is a small part of the cuts that have been proposed by the Republicans in the House, but it is the part that troubles me the most. We have got to keep our commitment to medical research for the good of this Nation and for the families that count on us to make certain we come up with new cures. We are blessed in America to have the best researchers on Earth. I would take them over any other country, and most Americans would. But are we going to stand by them, or are we going to make the deep cuts in areas like medical research as part of this political debate? | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-03-pt1-PgS1473-3 | null | 6,181 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Judiciary Committee Hearings Mr. President, you were there yesterday when the Senate Judiciary Committee met. I chair that committee, and we had a strong turnout of Democrats and Republicans to consider an issue which everyone has read about and heard about over the last several weeks, and that is, the ethical standards applied at the Highest Court in the land, the United States Supreme Court, across the street. We all read the news stories that led to this hearing and the questions raised about one particular Justice--but not him alone--in terms of gifts that they received and whether it influences their decisionmaking on the Court. That is basic and fundamental. If you think the fix is in on the Court, you don't have much respect for their operation. So the question is, what is going on in the Supreme Court? And as it turns out, as you well know, we have ethical standards and codes of conduct all across the Federal Government that apply to the Members of the Senate and the House and executive branch and to all of the courts below the Supreme Court in terms of financial disclosure and basic rules on what you can do and what you can't do. For example, there is a basic standard that is used for gifts--gifts for Members of the Senate and House--that puts a limit of $50 on the value of any gift. I have returned gifts given to me that I think exceeded that value, and I am sure the Presiding Officer has as well. That is our standard. But there is no ethics code of conduct, as best we can understand, when it comes to the Supreme Court, the Highest Court in the land. So, it turns out the Highest Court in the land has some of the lowest ethical standards. Why? Well, when this came to light in the news articles relating to Justice Thomas, I wrote to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, and invited him to come to the hearing yesterday to tell his side of the story. What is the Supreme Court doing when it comes to ethical standards? They don't play by the same rules as all the other courts in the America. What are their standards? Well, the Chief Justice declined my invitation and sent along some documents to indicate what he thinks are the rules of the road for ethics in the Supreme Court now. They were interesting; but, unfortunately, they reveal that the standards of the Highest Court in the land are not equal to the standards of all the other Federal courts. So we had a hearing yesterday on the subject. We invited witnesses from the Republican side and the Democratic side to comment on the current state of affairs. If the Chief Justice could not appear or would not appear, we went forward with the investigation, which is our responsibility under the law. Now asking a Justice of the Supreme Court to come and testify before a congressional committee is not unusual. Ninety-two appearances have been made by Justices of the Supreme Court since 1960 before the committees of Congress. But yesterday, neither the Chief Justice nor any other Justice on the Supreme Court appeared before us. So what we found was a surprise to me. I thought there would be some bipartisanship in this, because in the not-too-distant past, two Senators on the committee had crafted an ethics bill on the disclosure of stock holdings, sent not only to the President to sign, but it was embraced as well by the Supreme Court--a bipartisan, thoughtful measure, for sure. But yesterday, I am afraid things were very partisan. First, there was a question as to whether or not this was an attempt to attack the conservative members of the Supreme Court by raising ethical questions. I tried to make a point, several times, that the first letter that I sent to the Chief Justice--this Chief Justice--on the issue of a code of ethics in the Supreme Court, I delivered on February 13, 2012, during the Obama administration. So this is not some newfound interest. I have been working on it for years. My colleague Senator Sheldon Whitehouse also has dedicated a major part of his Senate career on this issue of ethical standards before the Supreme Court. So the notion that we just invented this because of unhappiness with recent court decisions just doesn't hold up. Many of us have been working on this issue for years--years before any of these decisions were handed down. There was also an argument that the Congress has no authority to establish standards for the Supreme Court. As I mentioned earlier when we had this stock disclosure law passed last year, it was embraced by the Court. The Court goes through some form of financial disclosure based on the law passed in 1978. By and large, there are many ways that the Congress interfaces with the Supreme Court, not the least of which is its budget. So we are in constant communication with the Court and its operation. I believe that we clearly have the authority to establish ethical standards in law for the Supreme Court. The Republicans on our committee, to a person, disagree with it. We also had an argument made that somehow we had singled out Clarence Thomas, a Justice on the Supreme Court, and decided that he was going to be persecuted by this type of inquiry. Well, let me say, the facts that were disclosed about his gift-taking from a Texas billionaire were extraordinary. I think they were a surprise to most people. Justice Thomas is not denying the fact that he took hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of vacations--yacht trips to Indonesia, private aircraft--from this Texas billionaire. He dismissed it and said it was personal hospitality. Personal hospitality does not include transportation, and, of course, this included a lot of the most luxurious transportation imaginable that the Justice received. So to say that this was acceptable conduct, it clearly was to Republicans yesterday, but I think most Americans want to know more about the relationship that would lead a Justice to take hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of trips. Not to mention that this same billionaire bought his mother's home and allowed her to live there afterwards. So that was worth at least $140,000 to the benefit of the Justice's family again. There were questions raised throughout as to why we would pick on one conservative Justice. I will tell you, the disclosures that have come out since the Thomas article about the gifts he received from the Texas billionaire have included many members of the Court, certainly those who wouldn't be put in the conservative category, and questions have been raised. Questions are raised about Members of Congress all the time, and they should be. I know each year when I disclose my taxes and my net worth in detail, somebody is going to call it into question: Explain this item to me. Explain that item to me. That is part of the responsibility of public service. It is no fun, but it is part of the job. If you want to be a public figure, I think you owe it to the people to be assuring them in every step of the way that you are being honest in the way you discharge your duties. So we haven't given up. When it comes to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the issue of ethics, we are far from finished. We had good testimony yesterday from witnesses who I think give us a basis for moving forward in this area. At the end of the day, we want to make sure that people, as skeptical as they are of politicians, as they have every right to be, believe the institutions--whether it is Congress or the Supreme Court or the President's office--are at least credible and trustworthy. Establishing a fundamental ethical standard that assures that fact is absolutely essential, and the Senate Judiciary Committee will continue in that pursuit. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-03-pt1-PgS1474 | null | 6,182 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Judiciary Committee Hearings Mr. President, you were there yesterday when the Senate Judiciary Committee met. I chair that committee, and we had a strong turnout of Democrats and Republicans to consider an issue which everyone has read about and heard about over the last several weeks, and that is, the ethical standards applied at the Highest Court in the land, the United States Supreme Court, across the street. We all read the news stories that led to this hearing and the questions raised about one particular Justice--but not him alone--in terms of gifts that they received and whether it influences their decisionmaking on the Court. That is basic and fundamental. If you think the fix is in on the Court, you don't have much respect for their operation. So the question is, what is going on in the Supreme Court? And as it turns out, as you well know, we have ethical standards and codes of conduct all across the Federal Government that apply to the Members of the Senate and the House and executive branch and to all of the courts below the Supreme Court in terms of financial disclosure and basic rules on what you can do and what you can't do. For example, there is a basic standard that is used for gifts--gifts for Members of the Senate and House--that puts a limit of $50 on the value of any gift. I have returned gifts given to me that I think exceeded that value, and I am sure the Presiding Officer has as well. That is our standard. But there is no ethics code of conduct, as best we can understand, when it comes to the Supreme Court, the Highest Court in the land. So, it turns out the Highest Court in the land has some of the lowest ethical standards. Why? Well, when this came to light in the news articles relating to Justice Thomas, I wrote to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, and invited him to come to the hearing yesterday to tell his side of the story. What is the Supreme Court doing when it comes to ethical standards? They don't play by the same rules as all the other courts in the America. What are their standards? Well, the Chief Justice declined my invitation and sent along some documents to indicate what he thinks are the rules of the road for ethics in the Supreme Court now. They were interesting; but, unfortunately, they reveal that the standards of the Highest Court in the land are not equal to the standards of all the other Federal courts. So we had a hearing yesterday on the subject. We invited witnesses from the Republican side and the Democratic side to comment on the current state of affairs. If the Chief Justice could not appear or would not appear, we went forward with the investigation, which is our responsibility under the law. Now asking a Justice of the Supreme Court to come and testify before a congressional committee is not unusual. Ninety-two appearances have been made by Justices of the Supreme Court since 1960 before the committees of Congress. But yesterday, neither the Chief Justice nor any other Justice on the Supreme Court appeared before us. So what we found was a surprise to me. I thought there would be some bipartisanship in this, because in the not-too-distant past, two Senators on the committee had crafted an ethics bill on the disclosure of stock holdings, sent not only to the President to sign, but it was embraced as well by the Supreme Court--a bipartisan, thoughtful measure, for sure. But yesterday, I am afraid things were very partisan. First, there was a question as to whether or not this was an attempt to attack the conservative members of the Supreme Court by raising ethical questions. I tried to make a point, several times, that the first letter that I sent to the Chief Justice--this Chief Justice--on the issue of a code of ethics in the Supreme Court, I delivered on February 13, 2012, during the Obama administration. So this is not some newfound interest. I have been working on it for years. My colleague Senator Sheldon Whitehouse also has dedicated a major part of his Senate career on this issue of ethical standards before the Supreme Court. So the notion that we just invented this because of unhappiness with recent court decisions just doesn't hold up. Many of us have been working on this issue for years--years before any of these decisions were handed down. There was also an argument that the Congress has no authority to establish standards for the Supreme Court. As I mentioned earlier when we had this stock disclosure law passed last year, it was embraced by the Court. The Court goes through some form of financial disclosure based on the law passed in 1978. By and large, there are many ways that the Congress interfaces with the Supreme Court, not the least of which is its budget. So we are in constant communication with the Court and its operation. I believe that we clearly have the authority to establish ethical standards in law for the Supreme Court. The Republicans on our committee, to a person, disagree with it. We also had an argument made that somehow we had singled out Clarence Thomas, a Justice on the Supreme Court, and decided that he was going to be persecuted by this type of inquiry. Well, let me say, the facts that were disclosed about his gift-taking from a Texas billionaire were extraordinary. I think they were a surprise to most people. Justice Thomas is not denying the fact that he took hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of vacations--yacht trips to Indonesia, private aircraft--from this Texas billionaire. He dismissed it and said it was personal hospitality. Personal hospitality does not include transportation, and, of course, this included a lot of the most luxurious transportation imaginable that the Justice received. So to say that this was acceptable conduct, it clearly was to Republicans yesterday, but I think most Americans want to know more about the relationship that would lead a Justice to take hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of trips. Not to mention that this same billionaire bought his mother's home and allowed her to live there afterwards. So that was worth at least $140,000 to the benefit of the Justice's family again. There were questions raised throughout as to why we would pick on one conservative Justice. I will tell you, the disclosures that have come out since the Thomas article about the gifts he received from the Texas billionaire have included many members of the Court, certainly those who wouldn't be put in the conservative category, and questions have been raised. Questions are raised about Members of Congress all the time, and they should be. I know each year when I disclose my taxes and my net worth in detail, somebody is going to call it into question: Explain this item to me. Explain that item to me. That is part of the responsibility of public service. It is no fun, but it is part of the job. If you want to be a public figure, I think you owe it to the people to be assuring them in every step of the way that you are being honest in the way you discharge your duties. So we haven't given up. When it comes to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the issue of ethics, we are far from finished. We had good testimony yesterday from witnesses who I think give us a basis for moving forward in this area. At the end of the day, we want to make sure that people, as skeptical as they are of politicians, as they have every right to be, believe the institutions--whether it is Congress or the Supreme Court or the President's office--are at least credible and trustworthy. Establishing a fundamental ethical standard that assures that fact is absolutely essential, and the Senate Judiciary Committee will continue in that pursuit. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-03-pt1-PgS1474 | null | 6,183 |
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-1148. A communication from the Federal Register Liaison Officer, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Risk Management, Financial Assurance, and Loss Prevention--Decommissioning Activities and Obligations'' ((RIN1082-AA02) (Docket ID BSEE-2020-0016)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 25, 2023; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-1149. A communication from the Biologist of the Branch of Domestic Listing, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Pearl Darter'' (RIN1018-BE55) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 25, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-1150. A communication from the Biologist of the Branch of Domestic Listing, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Bracted Twistflower and Designation of Critical Habitat'' (RIN1018-BE44) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 25, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-1151. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Clean Air Plans; 2015 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Requirements; Clean Fuels or Advanced Control Technology for Boilers; San Joaquin Valley and Los Angeles--South Coast Air Basin, California'' (FRL No. 10482-02-R9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 25, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-1152. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``South Carolina: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions'' (FRL No. 10671-02-R4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 25, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-1153. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program in Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Fire Suppression'' (FRL No. 6399-02-OAR) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 25, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-1154. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Testing Provisions for Air Emission Sources; Correction'' (FRL No. 8335-04-OAR) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 25, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-1155. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Oklahoma; Revisions to Air Pollution Control Rules'' (FRL No. 9407-02-R5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 25, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-1156. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Revisions to Part 1 and 2 Rules'' (FRL No. 10162-04-R5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 25, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-1157. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Part 4 Rule'' (FRL No. 10255-02-R5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 25, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-1158. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Texas; Reasonable Further Progress Plan for the Dallas-Fort Worth Ozone Ozone Nonattainment Area'' (FRL No. 10428-02-R6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 25, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-1159. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan; Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut'' (FRL No. 10562-02-R1) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 25, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-1160. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Oklahoma; Excess Emission and Malfunction Reporting Requirements'' (FRL No. 10596-02-R6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 25, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-1161. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Revision; California; Technical Amendments'' (FRL No. 10771-01-R9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 25, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-1162. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``The Medicare Secondary Payer Commercial Repayment Center in Fiscal Year 2022''; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1163. A communication from the Director of the Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Revenue Procedure: Examination of returns and claims for refund, credit, or abatement; determination of correct tax liability'' (Rev. Proc. 2023-21) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 25, 2023; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1164. A communication from the Branch Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Federal Tax Treatment of Certain Red Hill Fuel Spill Payments'' (Announcement 2023- 07) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 25, 2023; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1165. A communication from the Branch Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``2022 Revision of Form 3115'' (Announcement 2023-12) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 25, 2023; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1166. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs), transmitting additional legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests be enacted during the first session of the 118th Congress; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1167. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Medicare Program; Contract Year 2024 Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage Program, Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Program, Medicare Cost Plan Program, and Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly'' (RIN0938-AU96) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 17, 2023; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1168. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Annual Report to Congress on the Open Payments Program''; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1169. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel, General Law, Ethics, and Regulation, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Deputy Under Secretary, Department of Treasury received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 17, 2023; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1170. A communication from the Branch Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Announcement and Report Concerning Advance Pricing Agreements'' (Announcement 2023-10) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 17, 2023; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1171. A communication from the Deputy Commissioner of Legislation and Congressional Affairs, Social Security Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, reports entitled ``2023 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds'' and the ``2023 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds''; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1172. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Determination Under Section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA) to Provide Military Assistance to Ukraine''; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-1173. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a notification of intent to provide assistance to Ukraine, including for self-defense and border security operations; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-1174. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a notice concerning an amendment to the United States Munitions List (USML), located at part 121.1 of title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as part of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR); to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-1175. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to amendments to paragraph (c)(5) of Category XI of the U.S. Munitions List, within the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 22 C.F.R. pts 120- 130; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-1176. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs), transmitting additional legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests be enacted during the first session of the 118th Congress; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-1177. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Determination Under Section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA) to Provide Military Assistance to Ukraine''; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-1178. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Amendments to Supplement No. 1 to part 126 in Support of Allies'' (RIN1400-AF55) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 17, 2023; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-1179. A communication from the President and CEO, Inter-American Foundation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Foundation's FY24 Annual Performance Plan (APP); to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-1180. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Federal Coordinated Health Care Office's fiscal year 2022 report; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1181. A communication from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to the Case-Zablocki Act, 1 U.S.C. 112b, as amended, the report of the texts and background statements of international agreements, other than treaties (List 2023-0023 - 2023-0028); to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-1182. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Report of the Attorney General to the Congress of the United States on the Administration of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, for the six months ending June 30, 2021''; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-1183. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Report of the Attorney General to the Congress of the United States on the Administration of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, for the six months ending December 31, 2021''; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-1184. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``U.S. Compliance with the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq'' received in the Office of the President pro tempore; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-1185. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Observer Status for Taiwan at the Summit of the World Health Organization'' received in the Office of the President pro tempore; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-1186. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Cuban Compliance with the Migration Accords'' received in the Office of the President pro tempore; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-1187. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Millennium Challenge Corporation Annual Report for FY 2022'' received in the Office of the President pro tempore; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-1188. A communication from the Chief Diversity Officer and Director, Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Commission's fiscal year 2022 annual report relative to the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act); to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1189. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Secretariat Division, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); Federal Supply Schedule Clause Corrections'' (GSAR Case 2023- G504) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 25, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1190. A communication from the Director, Office of Civil Rights, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Department's fiscal year 2022 annual report relative to the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act) received in the Office of President pro tempore; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1191. A communication from the Chairman, Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Commission's fiscal year 2022 annual report relative to the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act) received in the Office of the President pro tempore; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1192. A communication from the Chairman, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Commission's fiscal year 2022 report relative to the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act) received in the Office of the President pro tempore; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1193. A communication from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Postal Service Reform Act; Establishment of the Postal Service Health Benefits Program'' (RIN3206-AO43) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 25, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1194. A communication from the Chairman, Merit Systems Protection Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Board's fiscal year 2022 annual report relative to the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act) received in the Office of the Presidnet pro tempore; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1195. A communication from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, the President's Pay Agent, transmitting, pursuant to law, an annual report to Congress on agencies' use of student loan repayments as a strategic tool for the purposes of recruitment and retention during calendar year 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1196. A communication from the Agency Director, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Agency's fiscal year 2022 annual report relative to the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act) received in the Office of the President pro tempore; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1197. A communication from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, the amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence that have been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-1198. A communication from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, the amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that have been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-1199. A communication from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that have been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-1200. A communication from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, the amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure that have been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-1201. A communication from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, the amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that have been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-03-pt1-PgS1501-4 | null | 6,184 |
formal | family values | null | homophobic | Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. Crapo) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 192 Whereas, each year in the United States, El Dia de los Ninos-Celebrating Young Americans is recognized as a day to affirm and recognize the importance of young children and adolescents in the United States; Whereas children and adolescents represent the hopes and dreams of the people of the United States, and the well-being of children and adolescents is emphasized as a top priority in the United States; Whereas, according to data of the Bureau of the Census, the Hispanic population in the United States is the youngest major racial or ethnic group in the United States, as-- (1) more than 18,800,000 Hispanics in the United States, a group that represents nearly \1/3\ of the Hispanic population in the United States, are younger than 18 years of age; and (2) in 2019, nearly 16,600,000 Hispanics in the United States, a group that represents more than \1/4\ of the Hispanic population in the United States, were individuals between 18 and 34 years of age; Whereas the Hispanic population in the United States continues to grow and is a significant part of the workforce in the United States, and children in the Hispanic population will be consumers, taxpayers, and voters in the future; Whereas, as the United States becomes more culturally and ethnically diverse, the people of the United States must strive to bring about cultural understanding and celebrate a tradition that honors all children and adolescents on El Dia de los Ninos-Celebrating Young Americans, a day that acknowledges and shares traditions and customs with all people in the United States; Whereas parents are at the center of teaching children about family values, morality, life preparation, health, survival, and culture; Whereas the designation of a day of special recognition to honor children and adolescents in the United States-- (1) will help affirm the significance of family, education, health, and community among the people of the United States; and (2) will provide an opportunity for those children and adolescents to reflect on their futures, to articulate their aspirations, to find comfort and security in the support of their family members, communities, and schools, and to grow to contribute to the United States; and Whereas April 30, 2023, would be an appropriate day to recognize as ``El Dia de los Ninos-Celebrating Young Americans'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes April 30, 2023, as ``El Dia de los Ninos- Celebrating Young Americans''; (2) encourages the people of the United States-- (A) to nurture and invest in children and adolescents in order to preserve and enhance economic prosperity, democracy, and the free and open exchange of ideas, which are concepts that are essential to the spirit of the United States; and (B) to celebrate the gifts of children and adolescents and help children and adolescents take their rightful place in the future of the United States; and (3) calls on the people of the United States to join with children, families, communities, schools, churches, cities, and States across the United States to observe El Dia de los Ninos-Celebrating Young Americans with appropriate ceremonies, including activities that-- (A) center on children and are free or of minimal cost so as to facilitate full participation by all people; (B) uplift and help children positively envision a path to their futures by allowing children to voice their hopes and dreams; (C) offer opportunities for children of diverse backgrounds to learn about the cultures of one another and to share ideas; (D) include family members, especially extended and elderly family members, so as to-- (i) promote understanding and communication among generations within families; and (ii) enable young people to learn from, and respect and benefit from the experiences of, their family elders; (E) enable diverse communities to build relationships of understanding; and (F) provide children with safe schools, homes, and communities that give them the long-term support they need to learn, develop, and become confident young adults who are ready and eager to believe in and contribute to the United States. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-03-pt1-PgS1514 | null | 6,185 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Nominations Mr. President, on nominations, it was another productive week here on the Senate floor when it comes to judges. By the end of today, the Senate will have confirmed another six highly qualified judicial nominees to lifetime appointments on the Federal bench this week--five District judges and one circuit court, all with bipartisan support. I thank my colleagues on both sides for their cooperation. Confirming highly qualified, diverse judges has been one of the Senate Democrats' highest priorities the moment we entered the majority. This was a very good week in that regard. But we are by no means done. You can be sure that confirming judges andbringing balance to the Judiciary will remain a top priority in the Senate in the days, weeks, and months ahead. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-04-pt1-PgS1522-3 | null | 6,186 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Budget Mr. President, the budget President Biden released a few weeks ago is, perhaps, most notable for two things: the incredible levels of spending it proposes and its proposed $4.7 trillion in tax hikes. Again, in light of what I just mentioned with respect to the debt and the deficit, it seems ironic that you would put a budget on the table that would dramatically increase the amount of debt. At the end of the 10-year period, the debt would be $50 trillion. It would increase $17 trillion under the President's budget, but it also includes $4.7 trillion in tax hikes on top of the hundreds of billions in tax hikes the Democrats passed last August as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. One thing that always strikes me when the President talks about tax hikes is how little his tax plans have to do with things like economic growth and prosperity. Taxes, of course, have a huge impact on our economy and our capacity for prosperity. I don't need to tell anyone that. The more in taxes that individuals and businesses pay to the government, the less money they have to save, spend, and grow. You would think that everyone would be able to agree that our tax system should promote both individual prosperity and economic growth. But, as I said, when you hear the President talk about taxes--specifically about raising taxes, since that is mostly what the President talks about on the tax front--you don't usually hear him focusing on the ways in which his tax plans will help grow our economy. His interest in taxes is not in growing our economy; it is in financing the growth of government and furthering a highly partisan, progressive social agenda. President Biden and Democrats have big plans for expanding the Federal Government, and to do that, they need more taxpayer money. They regard tax policy not as a way to help secure economic prosperity but as a way to collect that money so they can follow through on their plans for new and ever-expanding government programs. They spend little, if any, time considering how their high-tax agenda might damage our economy or burden American families. I would say that is a striking contrast to how Republicans think about taxes. Republicans' primary interest when it comes to tax policy is not about how to bring in more money for the Federal Government; it is about how to help our economy grow to expand prosperity for all, which, in the end, always brings in more revenue for the government. When the economy is growing and expanding, people are paying more in taxes. We believe that tax policy should be pro-growth, pro-opportunity, and pro-taxpayer. The historic reform of our Tax Code that we passed in 2017 is a perfect example of this. Prior to our 2017 legislation, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, our Tax Code was not working for taxpayers or for our economy. It was taking too much money from Americans' paychecks. It was making it difficult for businesses large and small to create jobs, increase wages, and to grow. It contained perverse incentives for companies to park profits abroad and avoid manufacturing things here in the United States. Republicans knew that if we wanted our country to thrive, our outdated Tax Code needed to change, so we set to work to reform our Tax Code to help grow our economy and allow Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money. We lowered tax rates across the board and simplified the Tax Code so that hard-working Americans would pay less in taxes and spend less time filing them every April. We lowered tax rates for owners of small and medium-sized businesses, farms, and ranches and made it easier for them to recover the cost of investing in their businesses, which in turn freed up cash for them to invest in their operations and in their workers--i.e., higher wages. We lowered our Nation's massive corporate tax rate, which prior to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. We did that to make American businesses more competitive in the global economy and empower them to invest in wages and benefits for their workers. And it worked. We brought our international tax system into the 21st century so that American businesses would no longer be operating at a disadvantage next to their foreign counterparts. That also worked. In the wake of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, incomes grew. Unemployment fell to a 50-year--50-year--low. The poverty rate fell to its lowest level ever--ever--recorded in American history. Black Americans and Hispanic Americans saw record-low rates of poverty and record-high increases in income. The income gap narrowed. Business investment increased. Inversions--that is tax-speak for companies moving their headquarters overseas--stopped. And the list goes on. Companies creatednew jobs. They invested in their employees, and they opened new opportunities for American workers by moving production and capital into the United States. Contrary to what some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have you believe, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act also helped increase revenues to the Federal Government. In short, tax reform helped create an economic environment for American businesses and American taxpayers to prosper, with some of the biggest benefits going to lower and middle-income Americans. Our economy's rebound from COVID--and much of the strength it still has after 2 years of Democrat-fueled inflation--is in large part due to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We are at an inflection point right now when it comes to tax policy and to our economy. Key parts of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are set to expire in the not too distant future, and certain provisions--provisions that help boost American innovation and make it easier for small- and medium-sized businesses to thrive--have already expired. There are two ways we could go. We can either maintain and build on Tax Cuts and Jobs Act policies designed to help businesses grow and expand opportunities for American workers or we can move in the direction the President is moving, which is dismantling pro-growth provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and making tax hikes the focus, with the intent not of growing the economy but of growing the Federal Government. I, for one, believe we should be focusing on tax policies that help spur economic growth and help allow Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money. I intend to do everything I can to preserve the economic benefits of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by working with my colleagues to expand and make permanent its policies. Even the President has grudgingly agreed that the lower rates for individuals making under $400,000 should be continued, and I hope he will work with Members of Congress to make that happen in the very near future. But we need to extend not just the lower individual rates that Republicans implemented but the other tax policies that helped American businesses grow, ensured more individuals can save for their retirement, and provided new opportunities for Americans to invest in their future. American workers don't just need reasonable tax rates; they also need a thriving economy, the kind of economy that produces good jobs and good wages and rewarding careers. That is the kind of economy the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act helped create, and that is the kind of economy we need to be fighting to create for the future. The massive tax hikes President Biden is proposing would tear down the tax structure the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act created and drag our economy and the American taxpayers down with it. I will do everything I can to prevent the President's job-killing tax hikes from being implemented. We don't need a pro-government Tax Code; we need a pro-growth, pro-opportunity, and pro-taxpayer Tax Code. For the sake of all the South Dakota families and businesses I am lucky enough to have the opportunity to represent and all the hard-working families and businesses across our great country, that is the kind of Tax Code I will continue to fight for. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-04-pt1-PgS1525 | null | 6,187 |
formal | hard-working Americans | null | racist | Budget Mr. President, the budget President Biden released a few weeks ago is, perhaps, most notable for two things: the incredible levels of spending it proposes and its proposed $4.7 trillion in tax hikes. Again, in light of what I just mentioned with respect to the debt and the deficit, it seems ironic that you would put a budget on the table that would dramatically increase the amount of debt. At the end of the 10-year period, the debt would be $50 trillion. It would increase $17 trillion under the President's budget, but it also includes $4.7 trillion in tax hikes on top of the hundreds of billions in tax hikes the Democrats passed last August as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. One thing that always strikes me when the President talks about tax hikes is how little his tax plans have to do with things like economic growth and prosperity. Taxes, of course, have a huge impact on our economy and our capacity for prosperity. I don't need to tell anyone that. The more in taxes that individuals and businesses pay to the government, the less money they have to save, spend, and grow. You would think that everyone would be able to agree that our tax system should promote both individual prosperity and economic growth. But, as I said, when you hear the President talk about taxes--specifically about raising taxes, since that is mostly what the President talks about on the tax front--you don't usually hear him focusing on the ways in which his tax plans will help grow our economy. His interest in taxes is not in growing our economy; it is in financing the growth of government and furthering a highly partisan, progressive social agenda. President Biden and Democrats have big plans for expanding the Federal Government, and to do that, they need more taxpayer money. They regard tax policy not as a way to help secure economic prosperity but as a way to collect that money so they can follow through on their plans for new and ever-expanding government programs. They spend little, if any, time considering how their high-tax agenda might damage our economy or burden American families. I would say that is a striking contrast to how Republicans think about taxes. Republicans' primary interest when it comes to tax policy is not about how to bring in more money for the Federal Government; it is about how to help our economy grow to expand prosperity for all, which, in the end, always brings in more revenue for the government. When the economy is growing and expanding, people are paying more in taxes. We believe that tax policy should be pro-growth, pro-opportunity, and pro-taxpayer. The historic reform of our Tax Code that we passed in 2017 is a perfect example of this. Prior to our 2017 legislation, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, our Tax Code was not working for taxpayers or for our economy. It was taking too much money from Americans' paychecks. It was making it difficult for businesses large and small to create jobs, increase wages, and to grow. It contained perverse incentives for companies to park profits abroad and avoid manufacturing things here in the United States. Republicans knew that if we wanted our country to thrive, our outdated Tax Code needed to change, so we set to work to reform our Tax Code to help grow our economy and allow Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money. We lowered tax rates across the board and simplified the Tax Code so that hard-working Americans would pay less in taxes and spend less time filing them every April. We lowered tax rates for owners of small and medium-sized businesses, farms, and ranches and made it easier for them to recover the cost of investing in their businesses, which in turn freed up cash for them to invest in their operations and in their workers--i.e., higher wages. We lowered our Nation's massive corporate tax rate, which prior to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. We did that to make American businesses more competitive in the global economy and empower them to invest in wages and benefits for their workers. And it worked. We brought our international tax system into the 21st century so that American businesses would no longer be operating at a disadvantage next to their foreign counterparts. That also worked. In the wake of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, incomes grew. Unemployment fell to a 50-year--50-year--low. The poverty rate fell to its lowest level ever--ever--recorded in American history. Black Americans and Hispanic Americans saw record-low rates of poverty and record-high increases in income. The income gap narrowed. Business investment increased. Inversions--that is tax-speak for companies moving their headquarters overseas--stopped. And the list goes on. Companies creatednew jobs. They invested in their employees, and they opened new opportunities for American workers by moving production and capital into the United States. Contrary to what some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have you believe, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act also helped increase revenues to the Federal Government. In short, tax reform helped create an economic environment for American businesses and American taxpayers to prosper, with some of the biggest benefits going to lower and middle-income Americans. Our economy's rebound from COVID--and much of the strength it still has after 2 years of Democrat-fueled inflation--is in large part due to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We are at an inflection point right now when it comes to tax policy and to our economy. Key parts of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are set to expire in the not too distant future, and certain provisions--provisions that help boost American innovation and make it easier for small- and medium-sized businesses to thrive--have already expired. There are two ways we could go. We can either maintain and build on Tax Cuts and Jobs Act policies designed to help businesses grow and expand opportunities for American workers or we can move in the direction the President is moving, which is dismantling pro-growth provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and making tax hikes the focus, with the intent not of growing the economy but of growing the Federal Government. I, for one, believe we should be focusing on tax policies that help spur economic growth and help allow Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money. I intend to do everything I can to preserve the economic benefits of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by working with my colleagues to expand and make permanent its policies. Even the President has grudgingly agreed that the lower rates for individuals making under $400,000 should be continued, and I hope he will work with Members of Congress to make that happen in the very near future. But we need to extend not just the lower individual rates that Republicans implemented but the other tax policies that helped American businesses grow, ensured more individuals can save for their retirement, and provided new opportunities for Americans to invest in their future. American workers don't just need reasonable tax rates; they also need a thriving economy, the kind of economy that produces good jobs and good wages and rewarding careers. That is the kind of economy the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act helped create, and that is the kind of economy we need to be fighting to create for the future. The massive tax hikes President Biden is proposing would tear down the tax structure the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act created and drag our economy and the American taxpayers down with it. I will do everything I can to prevent the President's job-killing tax hikes from being implemented. We don't need a pro-government Tax Code; we need a pro-growth, pro-opportunity, and pro-taxpayer Tax Code. For the sake of all the South Dakota families and businesses I am lucky enough to have the opportunity to represent and all the hard-working families and businesses across our great country, that is the kind of Tax Code I will continue to fight for. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-04-pt1-PgS1525 | null | 6,188 |
formal | hard-working American | null | racist | Budget Mr. President, the budget President Biden released a few weeks ago is, perhaps, most notable for two things: the incredible levels of spending it proposes and its proposed $4.7 trillion in tax hikes. Again, in light of what I just mentioned with respect to the debt and the deficit, it seems ironic that you would put a budget on the table that would dramatically increase the amount of debt. At the end of the 10-year period, the debt would be $50 trillion. It would increase $17 trillion under the President's budget, but it also includes $4.7 trillion in tax hikes on top of the hundreds of billions in tax hikes the Democrats passed last August as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. One thing that always strikes me when the President talks about tax hikes is how little his tax plans have to do with things like economic growth and prosperity. Taxes, of course, have a huge impact on our economy and our capacity for prosperity. I don't need to tell anyone that. The more in taxes that individuals and businesses pay to the government, the less money they have to save, spend, and grow. You would think that everyone would be able to agree that our tax system should promote both individual prosperity and economic growth. But, as I said, when you hear the President talk about taxes--specifically about raising taxes, since that is mostly what the President talks about on the tax front--you don't usually hear him focusing on the ways in which his tax plans will help grow our economy. His interest in taxes is not in growing our economy; it is in financing the growth of government and furthering a highly partisan, progressive social agenda. President Biden and Democrats have big plans for expanding the Federal Government, and to do that, they need more taxpayer money. They regard tax policy not as a way to help secure economic prosperity but as a way to collect that money so they can follow through on their plans for new and ever-expanding government programs. They spend little, if any, time considering how their high-tax agenda might damage our economy or burden American families. I would say that is a striking contrast to how Republicans think about taxes. Republicans' primary interest when it comes to tax policy is not about how to bring in more money for the Federal Government; it is about how to help our economy grow to expand prosperity for all, which, in the end, always brings in more revenue for the government. When the economy is growing and expanding, people are paying more in taxes. We believe that tax policy should be pro-growth, pro-opportunity, and pro-taxpayer. The historic reform of our Tax Code that we passed in 2017 is a perfect example of this. Prior to our 2017 legislation, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, our Tax Code was not working for taxpayers or for our economy. It was taking too much money from Americans' paychecks. It was making it difficult for businesses large and small to create jobs, increase wages, and to grow. It contained perverse incentives for companies to park profits abroad and avoid manufacturing things here in the United States. Republicans knew that if we wanted our country to thrive, our outdated Tax Code needed to change, so we set to work to reform our Tax Code to help grow our economy and allow Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money. We lowered tax rates across the board and simplified the Tax Code so that hard-working Americans would pay less in taxes and spend less time filing them every April. We lowered tax rates for owners of small and medium-sized businesses, farms, and ranches and made it easier for them to recover the cost of investing in their businesses, which in turn freed up cash for them to invest in their operations and in their workers--i.e., higher wages. We lowered our Nation's massive corporate tax rate, which prior to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. We did that to make American businesses more competitive in the global economy and empower them to invest in wages and benefits for their workers. And it worked. We brought our international tax system into the 21st century so that American businesses would no longer be operating at a disadvantage next to their foreign counterparts. That also worked. In the wake of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, incomes grew. Unemployment fell to a 50-year--50-year--low. The poverty rate fell to its lowest level ever--ever--recorded in American history. Black Americans and Hispanic Americans saw record-low rates of poverty and record-high increases in income. The income gap narrowed. Business investment increased. Inversions--that is tax-speak for companies moving their headquarters overseas--stopped. And the list goes on. Companies creatednew jobs. They invested in their employees, and they opened new opportunities for American workers by moving production and capital into the United States. Contrary to what some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have you believe, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act also helped increase revenues to the Federal Government. In short, tax reform helped create an economic environment for American businesses and American taxpayers to prosper, with some of the biggest benefits going to lower and middle-income Americans. Our economy's rebound from COVID--and much of the strength it still has after 2 years of Democrat-fueled inflation--is in large part due to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We are at an inflection point right now when it comes to tax policy and to our economy. Key parts of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are set to expire in the not too distant future, and certain provisions--provisions that help boost American innovation and make it easier for small- and medium-sized businesses to thrive--have already expired. There are two ways we could go. We can either maintain and build on Tax Cuts and Jobs Act policies designed to help businesses grow and expand opportunities for American workers or we can move in the direction the President is moving, which is dismantling pro-growth provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and making tax hikes the focus, with the intent not of growing the economy but of growing the Federal Government. I, for one, believe we should be focusing on tax policies that help spur economic growth and help allow Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money. I intend to do everything I can to preserve the economic benefits of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by working with my colleagues to expand and make permanent its policies. Even the President has grudgingly agreed that the lower rates for individuals making under $400,000 should be continued, and I hope he will work with Members of Congress to make that happen in the very near future. But we need to extend not just the lower individual rates that Republicans implemented but the other tax policies that helped American businesses grow, ensured more individuals can save for their retirement, and provided new opportunities for Americans to invest in their future. American workers don't just need reasonable tax rates; they also need a thriving economy, the kind of economy that produces good jobs and good wages and rewarding careers. That is the kind of economy the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act helped create, and that is the kind of economy we need to be fighting to create for the future. The massive tax hikes President Biden is proposing would tear down the tax structure the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act created and drag our economy and the American taxpayers down with it. I will do everything I can to prevent the President's job-killing tax hikes from being implemented. We don't need a pro-government Tax Code; we need a pro-growth, pro-opportunity, and pro-taxpayer Tax Code. For the sake of all the South Dakota families and businesses I am lucky enough to have the opportunity to represent and all the hard-working families and businesses across our great country, that is the kind of Tax Code I will continue to fight for. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-04-pt1-PgS1525 | null | 6,189 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate confirmed Judge Wesley Hsu to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Born in St. Louis, MO, Judge Hsu received both his bachelor's degree and J.D. from Yale University. Judge Hsu began his career in private practice as an associate and contract attorney at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, where he worked on a range of intellectual property matters. After working in private practice, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the same district to which he is now nominated. In this role, he gained significant litigation experience in both criminal and civil proceedings. During his time at the Department of Justice, Judge Hsu successfully prosecuted a defendant who trafficked computer networking equipment, which the Department named as one of its most significant intellectual property operations to date. In 2017, Judge Hsu was appointed as a Superior Court Judge for the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Since his appointment, he has presided over more than 200 criminal and civil cases that have gone to verdict or judgment. The American Bar Association rated Judge Hsu unanimously ``well qualified,'' and he has the strong support of Senators Feinstein and Padilla. Judge Hsu's deep ties to the California legal community, combined with his significant courtroom experience, will make him an excellent addition to the Federal bench. I thank my colleagues for confirming his nomination. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-05-04-pt1-PgS1531-4 | null | 6,190 |
formal | urban | null | racist | 29, 2023, AS ``NATIONAL WATER WEEK'' Mr. SULLIVAN (for himself, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Carper, Mr. Boozman, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Wicker, and Mr. Warnock) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 198 Whereas each community in the United States, both large and small, and urban, rural, and Tribal, deserves to have access to affordable, safe, and clean drinking water, sanitation, and other critical water infrastructure; Whereas more than 2,000,000 people in the United States lack access to running water, indoor plumbing, or wastewater services; Whereas small, rural, and disadvantaged community water systems struggle to make needed investments while keeping rates affordable; Whereas Federal investment in core drinking water, wastewater, stormwater capture, sustainable desalination, and water recycling programs allow local utilities and the customers of those local utilities to have the resources to affordably improve in water reliability and meet Federal regulatory obligations; Whereas source control is a critical first step to reducing emerging contaminants from entering water systems and the environment, along with advancing the state of the science on the risks of those contaminants, which is essential to protect public health; Whereas water infrastructure projects often rely on specific products and technologies, and substitutions may not be readily available, so it is critical to consider the realities unique to the water sector, and the near-term challenges that water infrastructure projects face; Whereas countless disadvantaged communities in the United States struggle to make needed investments in critical water infrastructure while simultaneously keeping rates affordable; Whereas water research helps solve some of the most pressing challenges for the water sector, such as-- (1) aging infrastructure; (2) emerging contaminants; (3) resiliency to extreme weather; (4) drought and water scarcity; and (5) significant shifts in population; Whereas research and development aimed at finding cost- effective solutions to the most pressing challenges for the water sector-- (1) create more resilient and effective water systems; (2) create new jobs and support thriving communities nationwide; and (3) result in improved public health and safety and promote equitable solutions throughout the United States; and Whereas Congress and the executive branch should assist water utilities to ensure that those communities can continue to fulfill their core mission of protecting public health and the environment while supporting local economic growth by addressing challenges related to-- (1) managing aging water infrastructure, and escalating operation and maintenance costs, supply chain disruptions, and workforce shortages; (2) addressing growing water quality impairments and regulations from emerging contaminants and nutrients; and (3) ensuring proper climate adaptation, system resiliency, and security measures are in place: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That Congress hereby designates the week of April 23 through April 29, 2023, as ``National Water Week''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-05-04-pt1-PgS1538 | null | 6,191 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since President Biden took office, he and our Democratic colleagues have been on amission--a mission to replace every car in America with an electric vehicle. Think about that for a minute. There are 280 million cars on the road in America, and our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle want to replace every single internal combustion engine with a big battery with wheels on it, known as an electric vehicle. They are determined to please the Green New Deal enthusiasts by shoveling mountains of taxpayer money into this effort, and they are making some headway. Last summer, our Democratic colleagues abused the rules of the Senate to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on something called the Inflation Reduction Act, which, in true Washington form, does not actually reduce inflation. But that is the name they gave to it. More importantly, this massive bill included a variety of pet projects, from a supersized Internal Revenue Service to handouts for rich folks who want to buy electric vehicles. Wealthy Americans, the only ones who can afford these expensive cars, can receive up to $7,500 in taxpayer assistance to buy an electric vehicle. So, in effect, you and I and everyone in the country is subsidizing, with our tax dollars, a private, well-to-do person to buy an electric vehicle, most of which costs in the $60 to $70 to $80,000 range and up. Democrats passed this bill at a time when most people can't afford their basic expenses. That is because of inflation, another product of profligate spending. Working families are struggling to keep up with the cost of everything from gasoline to groceries, to rent and electricity. Our Democratic colleagues responded by forcing every person in America to subsidize wealthy people's purchase of an electric car. Initial estimates pegged the costs of these EV tax credits, as they are called, at just over $30 billion. That is a lot of money. But private forecasters have recently reevaluated that number based on more precise projections. They said that the actual cost of the electric vehicle credits will be closer to $196 billion--6\1/2\ times higher than advertised. Again, hard-working families are suffering under inflation. When everything costs more, their purchasing power is diminished. Washington, DC, and our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle said: Well, your life is not quite hard enough; so we are going to make it harder. We are going to force you to subsidize wealthy people's purchase of these cars. Unfortunately, that is not the end of the story. The administration recently rolled out new rules to ensure--or at least to claim--that, by 2032, two-thirds of new passenger vehicles sold in the United States will be electric. By 2032, President Biden will be long gone. Probably many Members of the U.S. House and Senate will no longer be in office. Nevertheless, the administration says that, by 2032, we are going to mandate that two-thirds of new passenger vehicles be run on batteries, be electric. Of course, this announcement was met with applause by those who think that every driver in America should drive an electric vehicle, that somehow this is the price that has to be paid in pursuit of climate change or to combat climate change. But everybody else in America understands this is an unrealistic mandate because, like I said, with 280 million cars on the road, only about 6 percent max of the new cars sold in America are electric vehicles--only 6 percent of the new cars sold. But the Biden administration says that, by 2031, two-thirds of the cars have to be electric vehicles. So making the leap from 6 percent to 66 percent--which is two-thirds of the new car sales--in less than 10 years is an impossible task, and it comes with a lot of risks and hurdles. One of the most obvious ones is cost to consumers. At the end of last year, the average price of a new electric vehicle--this is just the average price--was more than $61,000. That is only a few thousand dollars less than the median household income in my State. Most families don't have tens of thousands of dollars to spend on fancy electric cars. As we have seen over the last few years with inflation, people are already struggling to keep up. They are not in the market for a fancy new electric vehicle that costs more than they make in an entire year. Another big issue has to do with how these vehicles are going to get powered. One of my favorite questions for my friends who are enthusiasts for this mandate and these taxpayer subsidies--one of my favorite questions--is this: Do you actually know where electricity comes from? No, it is not just that wall socket that you plug an appliance into. Electricity is generated by the same source that produces most of our other energy: natural gas, some nuclear, some coal, some other types of energy--hydroelectric energy, depending upon the location. But all of that energy use, including fossil fuels, is needed to produce affordable energy that then becomes electricity, that you can then plug your vehicle into. So this pie-in-the-sky idea that we are going to somehow cool the climate by everybody driving an electric vehicle is just--well, it is unattainable, and it is, frankly, ridiculous. Last year, 60 percent of America's electricity was generated by fossil fuels, including 40 percent by natural gas and nearly 20 percent by coal. Despite the fact that we will need these energy sources to power the electric grid and charge electric vehicles, we know the folks on the left side of the political spectrum have waged a war on fossil fuels. Well, this will turn out about as well as Europe's dependency on Russian oil and gas, on a sole source of energy, which they found out did not turn out well at all once Russia invaded Ukraine and they tried to diversify their energy sources. Putting all of our eggs in one basket with unrealistic goals and mandates to achieve a social outcome is bound to be unsuccessful. Our colleagues across the aisle have also made these energy sources more expensive by instituting a methane fee and tax hikes on energy producers, which, invariably, get passed on to the consumer; and they are consistently, it seems, trying to make fossil fuels less affordable in order to push our country toward renewables. Now, don't get me wrong. I am not opposed to renewables. We generate more electricity from wind turbines in Texas than any other State in the Nation. One reason our State continues to prosper economically is because we have the most affordable energy costs that come from an all-of-the-above strategy. We don't try to put all of our eggs in one basket--that is bound to be unsuccessful. We say: Well, let's do as much as we can using renewables--solar, wind--but we are also pragmatically clear-eyed about where electricity comes from, and we need all of the above. So one big important issue that I think was overlooked when the Inflation Reduction Act was passed by strictly Democratic votes in the Senate is that renewables only accounted for 22 percent of America's electricity generation last year--22 percent. It is growing, but it is not nearly sufficient to generate the electricity necessary to charge your electric vehicles. Either consumers have low-cost, reliable energy from fossil fuels or an all-of-the-above strategy, or else, they are condemned to an expensive and unreliable grid powered only by renewable energy sources. Those are the only options at this point, and I am afraid that is exactly the path that our Democratic colleagues are heading down. But since COVID-19 hit, we have seen what happens to vulnerable supply chains for the components we need to do all sorts of things. We spent a lot of time and money and focus on advanced semiconductors. That is really important because if we lost access to those advanced semiconductors, it would tank our economy and it would also jeopardize our national security. But the supply chain for electric vehicles is a vulnerable one as well. The feature that differentiates electric vehicles from those with an internal combustion engine is a battery. And, actually, what you can think of is the electric vehicles are like a battery on wheels run by a computer. And--this should really come as no surprise, but you would think this would have been vetted before--here is where batteries come from. Last year, China's battery manufacturing capacity accounted for 77 percent of the global total. Its production capacity is greater than that of the rest of the world combined. You cansee Poland at 6 percent, the U.S. at 6 percent, and everybody else is at just 11 percent. China is home to 6 of the world's 10 biggest battery makers and completely dominates the global battery-manufacturing market. Nobody else even comes close. By 2027, it is estimated that its manufacturing capacity is expected to increase nearly sevenfold--sevenfold. In that same timeframe, the United States is expected to see a twelvefold increase, but we are starting at 6 percent. That is not going to get us anywhere near where China is or where they will be by 2027. China will still command more than two-thirds of the world's battery-manufacturing capacity and the United States will be in second place with a measly 10 percent. Anyone who doesn't recognize and appreciate this issue hasn't been paying attention. Over the years, the Senate has been spending a great deal of time analyzing and addressing supply chain and particularly security gaps. As I had said, the pandemic taught us many lessons--many tough lessons--but one was the importance of a resilient supply chain. And we tried to make sure--we tried to learn from that so those lessons would not be in vain. I mentioned semiconductors. That may be the best example. The global chip shortage affected everything from personal electronics to cars to defense assets and critical infrastructure. We came to appreciate the hard way how reliant we had become on other countries for these semiconductors, these integrated circuits. And that made us incredibly vulnerable to another pandemic, to a natural disaster or, heaven forbid, a military conflict in the Taiwan Strait. So Congress responded appropriately by creating the CHIPS Program to bolster domestic chip manufacturing and close this massive security gap. But now our Democratic friends seem content to replace one vulnerability with another. As they continue to push for arbitrary and unrealistic electric vehicle goals, we will find ourselves in a similar situation when it comes to the batteries necessary to run these electric vehicles. To be blunt about it, we will be at China's mercy which, as we all know, is a very dangerous place to be. Despite the fact that China dominates the supply chain for the critical minerals used to produce batteries, most of those minerals are not actually mined in China. They come from reserves around the world. The Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, is home to the world's largest cobalt reserve. Indonesia is the leading producer of nickel. And three of the largest lithium reserves are concentrated in South America in Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile. Critical minerals are not safe from Chinese influence just because they are mined beyond China's borders, because China has made a huge investment in processing those critical minerals in China. In other words, they are mined in these countries, exported to China for processing, where they control access to the critical minerals that are needed to build batteries, among other things. China has aggressively increased its own processing capacity. Part of the problem, I might mention, is because it takes so long and requires an arduous, bureaucratic Rubik's Cube in order to get a permit to build things in America. And that is true whether it is from fossil fuels or the transmission lines from green energy that can transmit the electricity generated from wind turbines in Texas or anywhere else. You don't have those problems in China. They also don't have the same concerns we have for the environment. As we know, China is building more coal-fired power plants than any other country in the world. What happens in China does not stay in China when it comes to those emissions. So, right now, we have a general sense of the problems that we are confronting, but we are lacking some specifics when it comes to critical minerals, particularly. We don't know what reserves are under the control of foreign adversaries. We aren't guaranteed to receive a heads-up before major deals are made regarding mining rights and processing. Indeed, China has shown itself to be expert at operating surreptitiously under the cover of companies that sound like they come from somewhere else, where actually the People's Republic of China--the Chinese Communist Party--actually has controlling interest in those companies. So we are not able to identify the many risks of the global supply chain or critical opportunities for new trade partnerships. We need to address the blind spots that are protecting China's dominance in critical minerals and battery production. And we are not going to be able to do it overnight and certainly are not going to be able to meet President Biden's goal of two-thirds of new cars being electric vehicles by 2032. It is just not going to happen unless we are going to go to China and get those batteries. So a number of us are working to try to solve the problem. I think that is the appropriate response. I hope this is a topic where we can work together and that we are in bipartisan support, much as we did on the CHIPS Act, where Senator Warner, the senior Senator from Virginia, and I introduced that bill back in June of 2020, and we ended up passing that into law, as I indicated earlier, because both sides of the aisle saw a need to come together and come up with a solution. We need a solution in this area, too. Well, our colleagues on the other side have repeatedly prioritized some ideological obsession with all electric vehicles over the practical ramifications. Most Americans can't afford to purchase these pricey vehicles. Given the war on fossil fuels, our electric grid may not be able to sustain them, even if they could. By increasing our reliance on battery-powered vehicles, we are certain to increase our reliance on China. Given the major costs and risks, you have to ask, is this really worth it? Can we afford the risks? Will it actually--can it actually work? Will this have an impact on emissions as our friends across the aisle seem to believe? The answer is no. China is responsible for nearly one-third of all global emissions. As I said, they build more new coal-fired power plants than any other place on the planet. So China is responsible for nearly one-third of all global emissions, more than 2\1/2\ times the amount emitted by the United States. When it comes to U.S. emissions, passenger vehicles are only a fraction of the total. In 2021, the entire transportation sector accounted for 28 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. So if every car and every truck on the road was operated by an electric battery and electric vehicle courtesy of China, that would only account for 28 percent of the emissions. So this is not a solution to what our colleagues across the aisle are actually saying they are trying to do. Transportation is a significant source of emissions, beating out electricity production, industry, and agriculture, but that doesn't mean that personal vehicles are responsible for 28 percent of the emissions, because you have to include cars, SUVs and minivans, and trucks that drive all across America. So regular working families driving their kids to school or to work account for a little over one-half of the transportation emissions. The remainder comes from semitrucks, airplanes, trains, buses, ships, pipelines. In total, personal vehicles account for a little over 16 percent, and the U.S. emissions account for only 12.5 percent of global emissions. So we are not talking about a solution that our friends across the aisle say they want to accomplish. We are not going to eliminate our dependence on all of the above sources of energy, and we are certainly not going to solve what they perceive as a problem with the climate by forcing hardworking American families to subsidize electric cars for rich people. My purpose in speaking today is to demonstrate that these goals set out for by the President and which our colleagues have voted for in pursuit of their climate agenda are unrealistic. They are dangerous, and they are shortsighted. We will continue to shine a bright light on the facts as I have tried to do today so the American people can understand exactly what is going on here. This is more a pursuit of an ideological agenda rather than a practical solution to the real problem. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2023-05-04-pt1-PgS1540-2 | null | 6,192 |
formal | handouts | null | racist | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since President Biden took office, he and our Democratic colleagues have been on amission--a mission to replace every car in America with an electric vehicle. Think about that for a minute. There are 280 million cars on the road in America, and our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle want to replace every single internal combustion engine with a big battery with wheels on it, known as an electric vehicle. They are determined to please the Green New Deal enthusiasts by shoveling mountains of taxpayer money into this effort, and they are making some headway. Last summer, our Democratic colleagues abused the rules of the Senate to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on something called the Inflation Reduction Act, which, in true Washington form, does not actually reduce inflation. But that is the name they gave to it. More importantly, this massive bill included a variety of pet projects, from a supersized Internal Revenue Service to handouts for rich folks who want to buy electric vehicles. Wealthy Americans, the only ones who can afford these expensive cars, can receive up to $7,500 in taxpayer assistance to buy an electric vehicle. So, in effect, you and I and everyone in the country is subsidizing, with our tax dollars, a private, well-to-do person to buy an electric vehicle, most of which costs in the $60 to $70 to $80,000 range and up. Democrats passed this bill at a time when most people can't afford their basic expenses. That is because of inflation, another product of profligate spending. Working families are struggling to keep up with the cost of everything from gasoline to groceries, to rent and electricity. Our Democratic colleagues responded by forcing every person in America to subsidize wealthy people's purchase of an electric car. Initial estimates pegged the costs of these EV tax credits, as they are called, at just over $30 billion. That is a lot of money. But private forecasters have recently reevaluated that number based on more precise projections. They said that the actual cost of the electric vehicle credits will be closer to $196 billion--6\1/2\ times higher than advertised. Again, hard-working families are suffering under inflation. When everything costs more, their purchasing power is diminished. Washington, DC, and our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle said: Well, your life is not quite hard enough; so we are going to make it harder. We are going to force you to subsidize wealthy people's purchase of these cars. Unfortunately, that is not the end of the story. The administration recently rolled out new rules to ensure--or at least to claim--that, by 2032, two-thirds of new passenger vehicles sold in the United States will be electric. By 2032, President Biden will be long gone. Probably many Members of the U.S. House and Senate will no longer be in office. Nevertheless, the administration says that, by 2032, we are going to mandate that two-thirds of new passenger vehicles be run on batteries, be electric. Of course, this announcement was met with applause by those who think that every driver in America should drive an electric vehicle, that somehow this is the price that has to be paid in pursuit of climate change or to combat climate change. But everybody else in America understands this is an unrealistic mandate because, like I said, with 280 million cars on the road, only about 6 percent max of the new cars sold in America are electric vehicles--only 6 percent of the new cars sold. But the Biden administration says that, by 2031, two-thirds of the cars have to be electric vehicles. So making the leap from 6 percent to 66 percent--which is two-thirds of the new car sales--in less than 10 years is an impossible task, and it comes with a lot of risks and hurdles. One of the most obvious ones is cost to consumers. At the end of last year, the average price of a new electric vehicle--this is just the average price--was more than $61,000. That is only a few thousand dollars less than the median household income in my State. Most families don't have tens of thousands of dollars to spend on fancy electric cars. As we have seen over the last few years with inflation, people are already struggling to keep up. They are not in the market for a fancy new electric vehicle that costs more than they make in an entire year. Another big issue has to do with how these vehicles are going to get powered. One of my favorite questions for my friends who are enthusiasts for this mandate and these taxpayer subsidies--one of my favorite questions--is this: Do you actually know where electricity comes from? No, it is not just that wall socket that you plug an appliance into. Electricity is generated by the same source that produces most of our other energy: natural gas, some nuclear, some coal, some other types of energy--hydroelectric energy, depending upon the location. But all of that energy use, including fossil fuels, is needed to produce affordable energy that then becomes electricity, that you can then plug your vehicle into. So this pie-in-the-sky idea that we are going to somehow cool the climate by everybody driving an electric vehicle is just--well, it is unattainable, and it is, frankly, ridiculous. Last year, 60 percent of America's electricity was generated by fossil fuels, including 40 percent by natural gas and nearly 20 percent by coal. Despite the fact that we will need these energy sources to power the electric grid and charge electric vehicles, we know the folks on the left side of the political spectrum have waged a war on fossil fuels. Well, this will turn out about as well as Europe's dependency on Russian oil and gas, on a sole source of energy, which they found out did not turn out well at all once Russia invaded Ukraine and they tried to diversify their energy sources. Putting all of our eggs in one basket with unrealistic goals and mandates to achieve a social outcome is bound to be unsuccessful. Our colleagues across the aisle have also made these energy sources more expensive by instituting a methane fee and tax hikes on energy producers, which, invariably, get passed on to the consumer; and they are consistently, it seems, trying to make fossil fuels less affordable in order to push our country toward renewables. Now, don't get me wrong. I am not opposed to renewables. We generate more electricity from wind turbines in Texas than any other State in the Nation. One reason our State continues to prosper economically is because we have the most affordable energy costs that come from an all-of-the-above strategy. We don't try to put all of our eggs in one basket--that is bound to be unsuccessful. We say: Well, let's do as much as we can using renewables--solar, wind--but we are also pragmatically clear-eyed about where electricity comes from, and we need all of the above. So one big important issue that I think was overlooked when the Inflation Reduction Act was passed by strictly Democratic votes in the Senate is that renewables only accounted for 22 percent of America's electricity generation last year--22 percent. It is growing, but it is not nearly sufficient to generate the electricity necessary to charge your electric vehicles. Either consumers have low-cost, reliable energy from fossil fuels or an all-of-the-above strategy, or else, they are condemned to an expensive and unreliable grid powered only by renewable energy sources. Those are the only options at this point, and I am afraid that is exactly the path that our Democratic colleagues are heading down. But since COVID-19 hit, we have seen what happens to vulnerable supply chains for the components we need to do all sorts of things. We spent a lot of time and money and focus on advanced semiconductors. That is really important because if we lost access to those advanced semiconductors, it would tank our economy and it would also jeopardize our national security. But the supply chain for electric vehicles is a vulnerable one as well. The feature that differentiates electric vehicles from those with an internal combustion engine is a battery. And, actually, what you can think of is the electric vehicles are like a battery on wheels run by a computer. And--this should really come as no surprise, but you would think this would have been vetted before--here is where batteries come from. Last year, China's battery manufacturing capacity accounted for 77 percent of the global total. Its production capacity is greater than that of the rest of the world combined. You cansee Poland at 6 percent, the U.S. at 6 percent, and everybody else is at just 11 percent. China is home to 6 of the world's 10 biggest battery makers and completely dominates the global battery-manufacturing market. Nobody else even comes close. By 2027, it is estimated that its manufacturing capacity is expected to increase nearly sevenfold--sevenfold. In that same timeframe, the United States is expected to see a twelvefold increase, but we are starting at 6 percent. That is not going to get us anywhere near where China is or where they will be by 2027. China will still command more than two-thirds of the world's battery-manufacturing capacity and the United States will be in second place with a measly 10 percent. Anyone who doesn't recognize and appreciate this issue hasn't been paying attention. Over the years, the Senate has been spending a great deal of time analyzing and addressing supply chain and particularly security gaps. As I had said, the pandemic taught us many lessons--many tough lessons--but one was the importance of a resilient supply chain. And we tried to make sure--we tried to learn from that so those lessons would not be in vain. I mentioned semiconductors. That may be the best example. The global chip shortage affected everything from personal electronics to cars to defense assets and critical infrastructure. We came to appreciate the hard way how reliant we had become on other countries for these semiconductors, these integrated circuits. And that made us incredibly vulnerable to another pandemic, to a natural disaster or, heaven forbid, a military conflict in the Taiwan Strait. So Congress responded appropriately by creating the CHIPS Program to bolster domestic chip manufacturing and close this massive security gap. But now our Democratic friends seem content to replace one vulnerability with another. As they continue to push for arbitrary and unrealistic electric vehicle goals, we will find ourselves in a similar situation when it comes to the batteries necessary to run these electric vehicles. To be blunt about it, we will be at China's mercy which, as we all know, is a very dangerous place to be. Despite the fact that China dominates the supply chain for the critical minerals used to produce batteries, most of those minerals are not actually mined in China. They come from reserves around the world. The Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, is home to the world's largest cobalt reserve. Indonesia is the leading producer of nickel. And three of the largest lithium reserves are concentrated in South America in Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile. Critical minerals are not safe from Chinese influence just because they are mined beyond China's borders, because China has made a huge investment in processing those critical minerals in China. In other words, they are mined in these countries, exported to China for processing, where they control access to the critical minerals that are needed to build batteries, among other things. China has aggressively increased its own processing capacity. Part of the problem, I might mention, is because it takes so long and requires an arduous, bureaucratic Rubik's Cube in order to get a permit to build things in America. And that is true whether it is from fossil fuels or the transmission lines from green energy that can transmit the electricity generated from wind turbines in Texas or anywhere else. You don't have those problems in China. They also don't have the same concerns we have for the environment. As we know, China is building more coal-fired power plants than any other country in the world. What happens in China does not stay in China when it comes to those emissions. So, right now, we have a general sense of the problems that we are confronting, but we are lacking some specifics when it comes to critical minerals, particularly. We don't know what reserves are under the control of foreign adversaries. We aren't guaranteed to receive a heads-up before major deals are made regarding mining rights and processing. Indeed, China has shown itself to be expert at operating surreptitiously under the cover of companies that sound like they come from somewhere else, where actually the People's Republic of China--the Chinese Communist Party--actually has controlling interest in those companies. So we are not able to identify the many risks of the global supply chain or critical opportunities for new trade partnerships. We need to address the blind spots that are protecting China's dominance in critical minerals and battery production. And we are not going to be able to do it overnight and certainly are not going to be able to meet President Biden's goal of two-thirds of new cars being electric vehicles by 2032. It is just not going to happen unless we are going to go to China and get those batteries. So a number of us are working to try to solve the problem. I think that is the appropriate response. I hope this is a topic where we can work together and that we are in bipartisan support, much as we did on the CHIPS Act, where Senator Warner, the senior Senator from Virginia, and I introduced that bill back in June of 2020, and we ended up passing that into law, as I indicated earlier, because both sides of the aisle saw a need to come together and come up with a solution. We need a solution in this area, too. Well, our colleagues on the other side have repeatedly prioritized some ideological obsession with all electric vehicles over the practical ramifications. Most Americans can't afford to purchase these pricey vehicles. Given the war on fossil fuels, our electric grid may not be able to sustain them, even if they could. By increasing our reliance on battery-powered vehicles, we are certain to increase our reliance on China. Given the major costs and risks, you have to ask, is this really worth it? Can we afford the risks? Will it actually--can it actually work? Will this have an impact on emissions as our friends across the aisle seem to believe? The answer is no. China is responsible for nearly one-third of all global emissions. As I said, they build more new coal-fired power plants than any other place on the planet. So China is responsible for nearly one-third of all global emissions, more than 2\1/2\ times the amount emitted by the United States. When it comes to U.S. emissions, passenger vehicles are only a fraction of the total. In 2021, the entire transportation sector accounted for 28 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. So if every car and every truck on the road was operated by an electric battery and electric vehicle courtesy of China, that would only account for 28 percent of the emissions. So this is not a solution to what our colleagues across the aisle are actually saying they are trying to do. Transportation is a significant source of emissions, beating out electricity production, industry, and agriculture, but that doesn't mean that personal vehicles are responsible for 28 percent of the emissions, because you have to include cars, SUVs and minivans, and trucks that drive all across America. So regular working families driving their kids to school or to work account for a little over one-half of the transportation emissions. The remainder comes from semitrucks, airplanes, trains, buses, ships, pipelines. In total, personal vehicles account for a little over 16 percent, and the U.S. emissions account for only 12.5 percent of global emissions. So we are not talking about a solution that our friends across the aisle say they want to accomplish. We are not going to eliminate our dependence on all of the above sources of energy, and we are certainly not going to solve what they perceive as a problem with the climate by forcing hardworking American families to subsidize electric cars for rich people. My purpose in speaking today is to demonstrate that these goals set out for by the President and which our colleagues have voted for in pursuit of their climate agenda are unrealistic. They are dangerous, and they are shortsighted. We will continue to shine a bright light on the facts as I have tried to do today so the American people can understand exactly what is going on here. This is more a pursuit of an ideological agenda rather than a practical solution to the real problem. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2023-05-04-pt1-PgS1540-2 | null | 6,193 |
formal | hardworking American | null | racist | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since President Biden took office, he and our Democratic colleagues have been on amission--a mission to replace every car in America with an electric vehicle. Think about that for a minute. There are 280 million cars on the road in America, and our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle want to replace every single internal combustion engine with a big battery with wheels on it, known as an electric vehicle. They are determined to please the Green New Deal enthusiasts by shoveling mountains of taxpayer money into this effort, and they are making some headway. Last summer, our Democratic colleagues abused the rules of the Senate to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on something called the Inflation Reduction Act, which, in true Washington form, does not actually reduce inflation. But that is the name they gave to it. More importantly, this massive bill included a variety of pet projects, from a supersized Internal Revenue Service to handouts for rich folks who want to buy electric vehicles. Wealthy Americans, the only ones who can afford these expensive cars, can receive up to $7,500 in taxpayer assistance to buy an electric vehicle. So, in effect, you and I and everyone in the country is subsidizing, with our tax dollars, a private, well-to-do person to buy an electric vehicle, most of which costs in the $60 to $70 to $80,000 range and up. Democrats passed this bill at a time when most people can't afford their basic expenses. That is because of inflation, another product of profligate spending. Working families are struggling to keep up with the cost of everything from gasoline to groceries, to rent and electricity. Our Democratic colleagues responded by forcing every person in America to subsidize wealthy people's purchase of an electric car. Initial estimates pegged the costs of these EV tax credits, as they are called, at just over $30 billion. That is a lot of money. But private forecasters have recently reevaluated that number based on more precise projections. They said that the actual cost of the electric vehicle credits will be closer to $196 billion--6\1/2\ times higher than advertised. Again, hard-working families are suffering under inflation. When everything costs more, their purchasing power is diminished. Washington, DC, and our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle said: Well, your life is not quite hard enough; so we are going to make it harder. We are going to force you to subsidize wealthy people's purchase of these cars. Unfortunately, that is not the end of the story. The administration recently rolled out new rules to ensure--or at least to claim--that, by 2032, two-thirds of new passenger vehicles sold in the United States will be electric. By 2032, President Biden will be long gone. Probably many Members of the U.S. House and Senate will no longer be in office. Nevertheless, the administration says that, by 2032, we are going to mandate that two-thirds of new passenger vehicles be run on batteries, be electric. Of course, this announcement was met with applause by those who think that every driver in America should drive an electric vehicle, that somehow this is the price that has to be paid in pursuit of climate change or to combat climate change. But everybody else in America understands this is an unrealistic mandate because, like I said, with 280 million cars on the road, only about 6 percent max of the new cars sold in America are electric vehicles--only 6 percent of the new cars sold. But the Biden administration says that, by 2031, two-thirds of the cars have to be electric vehicles. So making the leap from 6 percent to 66 percent--which is two-thirds of the new car sales--in less than 10 years is an impossible task, and it comes with a lot of risks and hurdles. One of the most obvious ones is cost to consumers. At the end of last year, the average price of a new electric vehicle--this is just the average price--was more than $61,000. That is only a few thousand dollars less than the median household income in my State. Most families don't have tens of thousands of dollars to spend on fancy electric cars. As we have seen over the last few years with inflation, people are already struggling to keep up. They are not in the market for a fancy new electric vehicle that costs more than they make in an entire year. Another big issue has to do with how these vehicles are going to get powered. One of my favorite questions for my friends who are enthusiasts for this mandate and these taxpayer subsidies--one of my favorite questions--is this: Do you actually know where electricity comes from? No, it is not just that wall socket that you plug an appliance into. Electricity is generated by the same source that produces most of our other energy: natural gas, some nuclear, some coal, some other types of energy--hydroelectric energy, depending upon the location. But all of that energy use, including fossil fuels, is needed to produce affordable energy that then becomes electricity, that you can then plug your vehicle into. So this pie-in-the-sky idea that we are going to somehow cool the climate by everybody driving an electric vehicle is just--well, it is unattainable, and it is, frankly, ridiculous. Last year, 60 percent of America's electricity was generated by fossil fuels, including 40 percent by natural gas and nearly 20 percent by coal. Despite the fact that we will need these energy sources to power the electric grid and charge electric vehicles, we know the folks on the left side of the political spectrum have waged a war on fossil fuels. Well, this will turn out about as well as Europe's dependency on Russian oil and gas, on a sole source of energy, which they found out did not turn out well at all once Russia invaded Ukraine and they tried to diversify their energy sources. Putting all of our eggs in one basket with unrealistic goals and mandates to achieve a social outcome is bound to be unsuccessful. Our colleagues across the aisle have also made these energy sources more expensive by instituting a methane fee and tax hikes on energy producers, which, invariably, get passed on to the consumer; and they are consistently, it seems, trying to make fossil fuels less affordable in order to push our country toward renewables. Now, don't get me wrong. I am not opposed to renewables. We generate more electricity from wind turbines in Texas than any other State in the Nation. One reason our State continues to prosper economically is because we have the most affordable energy costs that come from an all-of-the-above strategy. We don't try to put all of our eggs in one basket--that is bound to be unsuccessful. We say: Well, let's do as much as we can using renewables--solar, wind--but we are also pragmatically clear-eyed about where electricity comes from, and we need all of the above. So one big important issue that I think was overlooked when the Inflation Reduction Act was passed by strictly Democratic votes in the Senate is that renewables only accounted for 22 percent of America's electricity generation last year--22 percent. It is growing, but it is not nearly sufficient to generate the electricity necessary to charge your electric vehicles. Either consumers have low-cost, reliable energy from fossil fuels or an all-of-the-above strategy, or else, they are condemned to an expensive and unreliable grid powered only by renewable energy sources. Those are the only options at this point, and I am afraid that is exactly the path that our Democratic colleagues are heading down. But since COVID-19 hit, we have seen what happens to vulnerable supply chains for the components we need to do all sorts of things. We spent a lot of time and money and focus on advanced semiconductors. That is really important because if we lost access to those advanced semiconductors, it would tank our economy and it would also jeopardize our national security. But the supply chain for electric vehicles is a vulnerable one as well. The feature that differentiates electric vehicles from those with an internal combustion engine is a battery. And, actually, what you can think of is the electric vehicles are like a battery on wheels run by a computer. And--this should really come as no surprise, but you would think this would have been vetted before--here is where batteries come from. Last year, China's battery manufacturing capacity accounted for 77 percent of the global total. Its production capacity is greater than that of the rest of the world combined. You cansee Poland at 6 percent, the U.S. at 6 percent, and everybody else is at just 11 percent. China is home to 6 of the world's 10 biggest battery makers and completely dominates the global battery-manufacturing market. Nobody else even comes close. By 2027, it is estimated that its manufacturing capacity is expected to increase nearly sevenfold--sevenfold. In that same timeframe, the United States is expected to see a twelvefold increase, but we are starting at 6 percent. That is not going to get us anywhere near where China is or where they will be by 2027. China will still command more than two-thirds of the world's battery-manufacturing capacity and the United States will be in second place with a measly 10 percent. Anyone who doesn't recognize and appreciate this issue hasn't been paying attention. Over the years, the Senate has been spending a great deal of time analyzing and addressing supply chain and particularly security gaps. As I had said, the pandemic taught us many lessons--many tough lessons--but one was the importance of a resilient supply chain. And we tried to make sure--we tried to learn from that so those lessons would not be in vain. I mentioned semiconductors. That may be the best example. The global chip shortage affected everything from personal electronics to cars to defense assets and critical infrastructure. We came to appreciate the hard way how reliant we had become on other countries for these semiconductors, these integrated circuits. And that made us incredibly vulnerable to another pandemic, to a natural disaster or, heaven forbid, a military conflict in the Taiwan Strait. So Congress responded appropriately by creating the CHIPS Program to bolster domestic chip manufacturing and close this massive security gap. But now our Democratic friends seem content to replace one vulnerability with another. As they continue to push for arbitrary and unrealistic electric vehicle goals, we will find ourselves in a similar situation when it comes to the batteries necessary to run these electric vehicles. To be blunt about it, we will be at China's mercy which, as we all know, is a very dangerous place to be. Despite the fact that China dominates the supply chain for the critical minerals used to produce batteries, most of those minerals are not actually mined in China. They come from reserves around the world. The Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, is home to the world's largest cobalt reserve. Indonesia is the leading producer of nickel. And three of the largest lithium reserves are concentrated in South America in Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile. Critical minerals are not safe from Chinese influence just because they are mined beyond China's borders, because China has made a huge investment in processing those critical minerals in China. In other words, they are mined in these countries, exported to China for processing, where they control access to the critical minerals that are needed to build batteries, among other things. China has aggressively increased its own processing capacity. Part of the problem, I might mention, is because it takes so long and requires an arduous, bureaucratic Rubik's Cube in order to get a permit to build things in America. And that is true whether it is from fossil fuels or the transmission lines from green energy that can transmit the electricity generated from wind turbines in Texas or anywhere else. You don't have those problems in China. They also don't have the same concerns we have for the environment. As we know, China is building more coal-fired power plants than any other country in the world. What happens in China does not stay in China when it comes to those emissions. So, right now, we have a general sense of the problems that we are confronting, but we are lacking some specifics when it comes to critical minerals, particularly. We don't know what reserves are under the control of foreign adversaries. We aren't guaranteed to receive a heads-up before major deals are made regarding mining rights and processing. Indeed, China has shown itself to be expert at operating surreptitiously under the cover of companies that sound like they come from somewhere else, where actually the People's Republic of China--the Chinese Communist Party--actually has controlling interest in those companies. So we are not able to identify the many risks of the global supply chain or critical opportunities for new trade partnerships. We need to address the blind spots that are protecting China's dominance in critical minerals and battery production. And we are not going to be able to do it overnight and certainly are not going to be able to meet President Biden's goal of two-thirds of new cars being electric vehicles by 2032. It is just not going to happen unless we are going to go to China and get those batteries. So a number of us are working to try to solve the problem. I think that is the appropriate response. I hope this is a topic where we can work together and that we are in bipartisan support, much as we did on the CHIPS Act, where Senator Warner, the senior Senator from Virginia, and I introduced that bill back in June of 2020, and we ended up passing that into law, as I indicated earlier, because both sides of the aisle saw a need to come together and come up with a solution. We need a solution in this area, too. Well, our colleagues on the other side have repeatedly prioritized some ideological obsession with all electric vehicles over the practical ramifications. Most Americans can't afford to purchase these pricey vehicles. Given the war on fossil fuels, our electric grid may not be able to sustain them, even if they could. By increasing our reliance on battery-powered vehicles, we are certain to increase our reliance on China. Given the major costs and risks, you have to ask, is this really worth it? Can we afford the risks? Will it actually--can it actually work? Will this have an impact on emissions as our friends across the aisle seem to believe? The answer is no. China is responsible for nearly one-third of all global emissions. As I said, they build more new coal-fired power plants than any other place on the planet. So China is responsible for nearly one-third of all global emissions, more than 2\1/2\ times the amount emitted by the United States. When it comes to U.S. emissions, passenger vehicles are only a fraction of the total. In 2021, the entire transportation sector accounted for 28 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. So if every car and every truck on the road was operated by an electric battery and electric vehicle courtesy of China, that would only account for 28 percent of the emissions. So this is not a solution to what our colleagues across the aisle are actually saying they are trying to do. Transportation is a significant source of emissions, beating out electricity production, industry, and agriculture, but that doesn't mean that personal vehicles are responsible for 28 percent of the emissions, because you have to include cars, SUVs and minivans, and trucks that drive all across America. So regular working families driving their kids to school or to work account for a little over one-half of the transportation emissions. The remainder comes from semitrucks, airplanes, trains, buses, ships, pipelines. In total, personal vehicles account for a little over 16 percent, and the U.S. emissions account for only 12.5 percent of global emissions. So we are not talking about a solution that our friends across the aisle say they want to accomplish. We are not going to eliminate our dependence on all of the above sources of energy, and we are certainly not going to solve what they perceive as a problem with the climate by forcing hardworking American families to subsidize electric cars for rich people. My purpose in speaking today is to demonstrate that these goals set out for by the President and which our colleagues have voted for in pursuit of their climate agenda are unrealistic. They are dangerous, and they are shortsighted. We will continue to shine a bright light on the facts as I have tried to do today so the American people can understand exactly what is going on here. This is more a pursuit of an ideological agenda rather than a practical solution to the real problem. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2023-05-04-pt1-PgS1540-2 | null | 6,194 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since President Biden took office, he and our Democratic colleagues have been on amission--a mission to replace every car in America with an electric vehicle. Think about that for a minute. There are 280 million cars on the road in America, and our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle want to replace every single internal combustion engine with a big battery with wheels on it, known as an electric vehicle. They are determined to please the Green New Deal enthusiasts by shoveling mountains of taxpayer money into this effort, and they are making some headway. Last summer, our Democratic colleagues abused the rules of the Senate to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on something called the Inflation Reduction Act, which, in true Washington form, does not actually reduce inflation. But that is the name they gave to it. More importantly, this massive bill included a variety of pet projects, from a supersized Internal Revenue Service to handouts for rich folks who want to buy electric vehicles. Wealthy Americans, the only ones who can afford these expensive cars, can receive up to $7,500 in taxpayer assistance to buy an electric vehicle. So, in effect, you and I and everyone in the country is subsidizing, with our tax dollars, a private, well-to-do person to buy an electric vehicle, most of which costs in the $60 to $70 to $80,000 range and up. Democrats passed this bill at a time when most people can't afford their basic expenses. That is because of inflation, another product of profligate spending. Working families are struggling to keep up with the cost of everything from gasoline to groceries, to rent and electricity. Our Democratic colleagues responded by forcing every person in America to subsidize wealthy people's purchase of an electric car. Initial estimates pegged the costs of these EV tax credits, as they are called, at just over $30 billion. That is a lot of money. But private forecasters have recently reevaluated that number based on more precise projections. They said that the actual cost of the electric vehicle credits will be closer to $196 billion--6\1/2\ times higher than advertised. Again, hard-working families are suffering under inflation. When everything costs more, their purchasing power is diminished. Washington, DC, and our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle said: Well, your life is not quite hard enough; so we are going to make it harder. We are going to force you to subsidize wealthy people's purchase of these cars. Unfortunately, that is not the end of the story. The administration recently rolled out new rules to ensure--or at least to claim--that, by 2032, two-thirds of new passenger vehicles sold in the United States will be electric. By 2032, President Biden will be long gone. Probably many Members of the U.S. House and Senate will no longer be in office. Nevertheless, the administration says that, by 2032, we are going to mandate that two-thirds of new passenger vehicles be run on batteries, be electric. Of course, this announcement was met with applause by those who think that every driver in America should drive an electric vehicle, that somehow this is the price that has to be paid in pursuit of climate change or to combat climate change. But everybody else in America understands this is an unrealistic mandate because, like I said, with 280 million cars on the road, only about 6 percent max of the new cars sold in America are electric vehicles--only 6 percent of the new cars sold. But the Biden administration says that, by 2031, two-thirds of the cars have to be electric vehicles. So making the leap from 6 percent to 66 percent--which is two-thirds of the new car sales--in less than 10 years is an impossible task, and it comes with a lot of risks and hurdles. One of the most obvious ones is cost to consumers. At the end of last year, the average price of a new electric vehicle--this is just the average price--was more than $61,000. That is only a few thousand dollars less than the median household income in my State. Most families don't have tens of thousands of dollars to spend on fancy electric cars. As we have seen over the last few years with inflation, people are already struggling to keep up. They are not in the market for a fancy new electric vehicle that costs more than they make in an entire year. Another big issue has to do with how these vehicles are going to get powered. One of my favorite questions for my friends who are enthusiasts for this mandate and these taxpayer subsidies--one of my favorite questions--is this: Do you actually know where electricity comes from? No, it is not just that wall socket that you plug an appliance into. Electricity is generated by the same source that produces most of our other energy: natural gas, some nuclear, some coal, some other types of energy--hydroelectric energy, depending upon the location. But all of that energy use, including fossil fuels, is needed to produce affordable energy that then becomes electricity, that you can then plug your vehicle into. So this pie-in-the-sky idea that we are going to somehow cool the climate by everybody driving an electric vehicle is just--well, it is unattainable, and it is, frankly, ridiculous. Last year, 60 percent of America's electricity was generated by fossil fuels, including 40 percent by natural gas and nearly 20 percent by coal. Despite the fact that we will need these energy sources to power the electric grid and charge electric vehicles, we know the folks on the left side of the political spectrum have waged a war on fossil fuels. Well, this will turn out about as well as Europe's dependency on Russian oil and gas, on a sole source of energy, which they found out did not turn out well at all once Russia invaded Ukraine and they tried to diversify their energy sources. Putting all of our eggs in one basket with unrealistic goals and mandates to achieve a social outcome is bound to be unsuccessful. Our colleagues across the aisle have also made these energy sources more expensive by instituting a methane fee and tax hikes on energy producers, which, invariably, get passed on to the consumer; and they are consistently, it seems, trying to make fossil fuels less affordable in order to push our country toward renewables. Now, don't get me wrong. I am not opposed to renewables. We generate more electricity from wind turbines in Texas than any other State in the Nation. One reason our State continues to prosper economically is because we have the most affordable energy costs that come from an all-of-the-above strategy. We don't try to put all of our eggs in one basket--that is bound to be unsuccessful. We say: Well, let's do as much as we can using renewables--solar, wind--but we are also pragmatically clear-eyed about where electricity comes from, and we need all of the above. So one big important issue that I think was overlooked when the Inflation Reduction Act was passed by strictly Democratic votes in the Senate is that renewables only accounted for 22 percent of America's electricity generation last year--22 percent. It is growing, but it is not nearly sufficient to generate the electricity necessary to charge your electric vehicles. Either consumers have low-cost, reliable energy from fossil fuels or an all-of-the-above strategy, or else, they are condemned to an expensive and unreliable grid powered only by renewable energy sources. Those are the only options at this point, and I am afraid that is exactly the path that our Democratic colleagues are heading down. But since COVID-19 hit, we have seen what happens to vulnerable supply chains for the components we need to do all sorts of things. We spent a lot of time and money and focus on advanced semiconductors. That is really important because if we lost access to those advanced semiconductors, it would tank our economy and it would also jeopardize our national security. But the supply chain for electric vehicles is a vulnerable one as well. The feature that differentiates electric vehicles from those with an internal combustion engine is a battery. And, actually, what you can think of is the electric vehicles are like a battery on wheels run by a computer. And--this should really come as no surprise, but you would think this would have been vetted before--here is where batteries come from. Last year, China's battery manufacturing capacity accounted for 77 percent of the global total. Its production capacity is greater than that of the rest of the world combined. You cansee Poland at 6 percent, the U.S. at 6 percent, and everybody else is at just 11 percent. China is home to 6 of the world's 10 biggest battery makers and completely dominates the global battery-manufacturing market. Nobody else even comes close. By 2027, it is estimated that its manufacturing capacity is expected to increase nearly sevenfold--sevenfold. In that same timeframe, the United States is expected to see a twelvefold increase, but we are starting at 6 percent. That is not going to get us anywhere near where China is or where they will be by 2027. China will still command more than two-thirds of the world's battery-manufacturing capacity and the United States will be in second place with a measly 10 percent. Anyone who doesn't recognize and appreciate this issue hasn't been paying attention. Over the years, the Senate has been spending a great deal of time analyzing and addressing supply chain and particularly security gaps. As I had said, the pandemic taught us many lessons--many tough lessons--but one was the importance of a resilient supply chain. And we tried to make sure--we tried to learn from that so those lessons would not be in vain. I mentioned semiconductors. That may be the best example. The global chip shortage affected everything from personal electronics to cars to defense assets and critical infrastructure. We came to appreciate the hard way how reliant we had become on other countries for these semiconductors, these integrated circuits. And that made us incredibly vulnerable to another pandemic, to a natural disaster or, heaven forbid, a military conflict in the Taiwan Strait. So Congress responded appropriately by creating the CHIPS Program to bolster domestic chip manufacturing and close this massive security gap. But now our Democratic friends seem content to replace one vulnerability with another. As they continue to push for arbitrary and unrealistic electric vehicle goals, we will find ourselves in a similar situation when it comes to the batteries necessary to run these electric vehicles. To be blunt about it, we will be at China's mercy which, as we all know, is a very dangerous place to be. Despite the fact that China dominates the supply chain for the critical minerals used to produce batteries, most of those minerals are not actually mined in China. They come from reserves around the world. The Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, is home to the world's largest cobalt reserve. Indonesia is the leading producer of nickel. And three of the largest lithium reserves are concentrated in South America in Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile. Critical minerals are not safe from Chinese influence just because they are mined beyond China's borders, because China has made a huge investment in processing those critical minerals in China. In other words, they are mined in these countries, exported to China for processing, where they control access to the critical minerals that are needed to build batteries, among other things. China has aggressively increased its own processing capacity. Part of the problem, I might mention, is because it takes so long and requires an arduous, bureaucratic Rubik's Cube in order to get a permit to build things in America. And that is true whether it is from fossil fuels or the transmission lines from green energy that can transmit the electricity generated from wind turbines in Texas or anywhere else. You don't have those problems in China. They also don't have the same concerns we have for the environment. As we know, China is building more coal-fired power plants than any other country in the world. What happens in China does not stay in China when it comes to those emissions. So, right now, we have a general sense of the problems that we are confronting, but we are lacking some specifics when it comes to critical minerals, particularly. We don't know what reserves are under the control of foreign adversaries. We aren't guaranteed to receive a heads-up before major deals are made regarding mining rights and processing. Indeed, China has shown itself to be expert at operating surreptitiously under the cover of companies that sound like they come from somewhere else, where actually the People's Republic of China--the Chinese Communist Party--actually has controlling interest in those companies. So we are not able to identify the many risks of the global supply chain or critical opportunities for new trade partnerships. We need to address the blind spots that are protecting China's dominance in critical minerals and battery production. And we are not going to be able to do it overnight and certainly are not going to be able to meet President Biden's goal of two-thirds of new cars being electric vehicles by 2032. It is just not going to happen unless we are going to go to China and get those batteries. So a number of us are working to try to solve the problem. I think that is the appropriate response. I hope this is a topic where we can work together and that we are in bipartisan support, much as we did on the CHIPS Act, where Senator Warner, the senior Senator from Virginia, and I introduced that bill back in June of 2020, and we ended up passing that into law, as I indicated earlier, because both sides of the aisle saw a need to come together and come up with a solution. We need a solution in this area, too. Well, our colleagues on the other side have repeatedly prioritized some ideological obsession with all electric vehicles over the practical ramifications. Most Americans can't afford to purchase these pricey vehicles. Given the war on fossil fuels, our electric grid may not be able to sustain them, even if they could. By increasing our reliance on battery-powered vehicles, we are certain to increase our reliance on China. Given the major costs and risks, you have to ask, is this really worth it? Can we afford the risks? Will it actually--can it actually work? Will this have an impact on emissions as our friends across the aisle seem to believe? The answer is no. China is responsible for nearly one-third of all global emissions. As I said, they build more new coal-fired power plants than any other place on the planet. So China is responsible for nearly one-third of all global emissions, more than 2\1/2\ times the amount emitted by the United States. When it comes to U.S. emissions, passenger vehicles are only a fraction of the total. In 2021, the entire transportation sector accounted for 28 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. So if every car and every truck on the road was operated by an electric battery and electric vehicle courtesy of China, that would only account for 28 percent of the emissions. So this is not a solution to what our colleagues across the aisle are actually saying they are trying to do. Transportation is a significant source of emissions, beating out electricity production, industry, and agriculture, but that doesn't mean that personal vehicles are responsible for 28 percent of the emissions, because you have to include cars, SUVs and minivans, and trucks that drive all across America. So regular working families driving their kids to school or to work account for a little over one-half of the transportation emissions. The remainder comes from semitrucks, airplanes, trains, buses, ships, pipelines. In total, personal vehicles account for a little over 16 percent, and the U.S. emissions account for only 12.5 percent of global emissions. So we are not talking about a solution that our friends across the aisle say they want to accomplish. We are not going to eliminate our dependence on all of the above sources of energy, and we are certainly not going to solve what they perceive as a problem with the climate by forcing hardworking American families to subsidize electric cars for rich people. My purpose in speaking today is to demonstrate that these goals set out for by the President and which our colleagues have voted for in pursuit of their climate agenda are unrealistic. They are dangerous, and they are shortsighted. We will continue to shine a bright light on the facts as I have tried to do today so the American people can understand exactly what is going on here. This is more a pursuit of an ideological agenda rather than a practical solution to the real problem. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2023-05-04-pt1-PgS1540-2 | null | 6,195 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since President Biden took office, he and our Democratic colleagues have been on amission--a mission to replace every car in America with an electric vehicle. Think about that for a minute. There are 280 million cars on the road in America, and our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle want to replace every single internal combustion engine with a big battery with wheels on it, known as an electric vehicle. They are determined to please the Green New Deal enthusiasts by shoveling mountains of taxpayer money into this effort, and they are making some headway. Last summer, our Democratic colleagues abused the rules of the Senate to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on something called the Inflation Reduction Act, which, in true Washington form, does not actually reduce inflation. But that is the name they gave to it. More importantly, this massive bill included a variety of pet projects, from a supersized Internal Revenue Service to handouts for rich folks who want to buy electric vehicles. Wealthy Americans, the only ones who can afford these expensive cars, can receive up to $7,500 in taxpayer assistance to buy an electric vehicle. So, in effect, you and I and everyone in the country is subsidizing, with our tax dollars, a private, well-to-do person to buy an electric vehicle, most of which costs in the $60 to $70 to $80,000 range and up. Democrats passed this bill at a time when most people can't afford their basic expenses. That is because of inflation, another product of profligate spending. Working families are struggling to keep up with the cost of everything from gasoline to groceries, to rent and electricity. Our Democratic colleagues responded by forcing every person in America to subsidize wealthy people's purchase of an electric car. Initial estimates pegged the costs of these EV tax credits, as they are called, at just over $30 billion. That is a lot of money. But private forecasters have recently reevaluated that number based on more precise projections. They said that the actual cost of the electric vehicle credits will be closer to $196 billion--6\1/2\ times higher than advertised. Again, hard-working families are suffering under inflation. When everything costs more, their purchasing power is diminished. Washington, DC, and our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle said: Well, your life is not quite hard enough; so we are going to make it harder. We are going to force you to subsidize wealthy people's purchase of these cars. Unfortunately, that is not the end of the story. The administration recently rolled out new rules to ensure--or at least to claim--that, by 2032, two-thirds of new passenger vehicles sold in the United States will be electric. By 2032, President Biden will be long gone. Probably many Members of the U.S. House and Senate will no longer be in office. Nevertheless, the administration says that, by 2032, we are going to mandate that two-thirds of new passenger vehicles be run on batteries, be electric. Of course, this announcement was met with applause by those who think that every driver in America should drive an electric vehicle, that somehow this is the price that has to be paid in pursuit of climate change or to combat climate change. But everybody else in America understands this is an unrealistic mandate because, like I said, with 280 million cars on the road, only about 6 percent max of the new cars sold in America are electric vehicles--only 6 percent of the new cars sold. But the Biden administration says that, by 2031, two-thirds of the cars have to be electric vehicles. So making the leap from 6 percent to 66 percent--which is two-thirds of the new car sales--in less than 10 years is an impossible task, and it comes with a lot of risks and hurdles. One of the most obvious ones is cost to consumers. At the end of last year, the average price of a new electric vehicle--this is just the average price--was more than $61,000. That is only a few thousand dollars less than the median household income in my State. Most families don't have tens of thousands of dollars to spend on fancy electric cars. As we have seen over the last few years with inflation, people are already struggling to keep up. They are not in the market for a fancy new electric vehicle that costs more than they make in an entire year. Another big issue has to do with how these vehicles are going to get powered. One of my favorite questions for my friends who are enthusiasts for this mandate and these taxpayer subsidies--one of my favorite questions--is this: Do you actually know where electricity comes from? No, it is not just that wall socket that you plug an appliance into. Electricity is generated by the same source that produces most of our other energy: natural gas, some nuclear, some coal, some other types of energy--hydroelectric energy, depending upon the location. But all of that energy use, including fossil fuels, is needed to produce affordable energy that then becomes electricity, that you can then plug your vehicle into. So this pie-in-the-sky idea that we are going to somehow cool the climate by everybody driving an electric vehicle is just--well, it is unattainable, and it is, frankly, ridiculous. Last year, 60 percent of America's electricity was generated by fossil fuels, including 40 percent by natural gas and nearly 20 percent by coal. Despite the fact that we will need these energy sources to power the electric grid and charge electric vehicles, we know the folks on the left side of the political spectrum have waged a war on fossil fuels. Well, this will turn out about as well as Europe's dependency on Russian oil and gas, on a sole source of energy, which they found out did not turn out well at all once Russia invaded Ukraine and they tried to diversify their energy sources. Putting all of our eggs in one basket with unrealistic goals and mandates to achieve a social outcome is bound to be unsuccessful. Our colleagues across the aisle have also made these energy sources more expensive by instituting a methane fee and tax hikes on energy producers, which, invariably, get passed on to the consumer; and they are consistently, it seems, trying to make fossil fuels less affordable in order to push our country toward renewables. Now, don't get me wrong. I am not opposed to renewables. We generate more electricity from wind turbines in Texas than any other State in the Nation. One reason our State continues to prosper economically is because we have the most affordable energy costs that come from an all-of-the-above strategy. We don't try to put all of our eggs in one basket--that is bound to be unsuccessful. We say: Well, let's do as much as we can using renewables--solar, wind--but we are also pragmatically clear-eyed about where electricity comes from, and we need all of the above. So one big important issue that I think was overlooked when the Inflation Reduction Act was passed by strictly Democratic votes in the Senate is that renewables only accounted for 22 percent of America's electricity generation last year--22 percent. It is growing, but it is not nearly sufficient to generate the electricity necessary to charge your electric vehicles. Either consumers have low-cost, reliable energy from fossil fuels or an all-of-the-above strategy, or else, they are condemned to an expensive and unreliable grid powered only by renewable energy sources. Those are the only options at this point, and I am afraid that is exactly the path that our Democratic colleagues are heading down. But since COVID-19 hit, we have seen what happens to vulnerable supply chains for the components we need to do all sorts of things. We spent a lot of time and money and focus on advanced semiconductors. That is really important because if we lost access to those advanced semiconductors, it would tank our economy and it would also jeopardize our national security. But the supply chain for electric vehicles is a vulnerable one as well. The feature that differentiates electric vehicles from those with an internal combustion engine is a battery. And, actually, what you can think of is the electric vehicles are like a battery on wheels run by a computer. And--this should really come as no surprise, but you would think this would have been vetted before--here is where batteries come from. Last year, China's battery manufacturing capacity accounted for 77 percent of the global total. Its production capacity is greater than that of the rest of the world combined. You cansee Poland at 6 percent, the U.S. at 6 percent, and everybody else is at just 11 percent. China is home to 6 of the world's 10 biggest battery makers and completely dominates the global battery-manufacturing market. Nobody else even comes close. By 2027, it is estimated that its manufacturing capacity is expected to increase nearly sevenfold--sevenfold. In that same timeframe, the United States is expected to see a twelvefold increase, but we are starting at 6 percent. That is not going to get us anywhere near where China is or where they will be by 2027. China will still command more than two-thirds of the world's battery-manufacturing capacity and the United States will be in second place with a measly 10 percent. Anyone who doesn't recognize and appreciate this issue hasn't been paying attention. Over the years, the Senate has been spending a great deal of time analyzing and addressing supply chain and particularly security gaps. As I had said, the pandemic taught us many lessons--many tough lessons--but one was the importance of a resilient supply chain. And we tried to make sure--we tried to learn from that so those lessons would not be in vain. I mentioned semiconductors. That may be the best example. The global chip shortage affected everything from personal electronics to cars to defense assets and critical infrastructure. We came to appreciate the hard way how reliant we had become on other countries for these semiconductors, these integrated circuits. And that made us incredibly vulnerable to another pandemic, to a natural disaster or, heaven forbid, a military conflict in the Taiwan Strait. So Congress responded appropriately by creating the CHIPS Program to bolster domestic chip manufacturing and close this massive security gap. But now our Democratic friends seem content to replace one vulnerability with another. As they continue to push for arbitrary and unrealistic electric vehicle goals, we will find ourselves in a similar situation when it comes to the batteries necessary to run these electric vehicles. To be blunt about it, we will be at China's mercy which, as we all know, is a very dangerous place to be. Despite the fact that China dominates the supply chain for the critical minerals used to produce batteries, most of those minerals are not actually mined in China. They come from reserves around the world. The Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, is home to the world's largest cobalt reserve. Indonesia is the leading producer of nickel. And three of the largest lithium reserves are concentrated in South America in Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile. Critical minerals are not safe from Chinese influence just because they are mined beyond China's borders, because China has made a huge investment in processing those critical minerals in China. In other words, they are mined in these countries, exported to China for processing, where they control access to the critical minerals that are needed to build batteries, among other things. China has aggressively increased its own processing capacity. Part of the problem, I might mention, is because it takes so long and requires an arduous, bureaucratic Rubik's Cube in order to get a permit to build things in America. And that is true whether it is from fossil fuels or the transmission lines from green energy that can transmit the electricity generated from wind turbines in Texas or anywhere else. You don't have those problems in China. They also don't have the same concerns we have for the environment. As we know, China is building more coal-fired power plants than any other country in the world. What happens in China does not stay in China when it comes to those emissions. So, right now, we have a general sense of the problems that we are confronting, but we are lacking some specifics when it comes to critical minerals, particularly. We don't know what reserves are under the control of foreign adversaries. We aren't guaranteed to receive a heads-up before major deals are made regarding mining rights and processing. Indeed, China has shown itself to be expert at operating surreptitiously under the cover of companies that sound like they come from somewhere else, where actually the People's Republic of China--the Chinese Communist Party--actually has controlling interest in those companies. So we are not able to identify the many risks of the global supply chain or critical opportunities for new trade partnerships. We need to address the blind spots that are protecting China's dominance in critical minerals and battery production. And we are not going to be able to do it overnight and certainly are not going to be able to meet President Biden's goal of two-thirds of new cars being electric vehicles by 2032. It is just not going to happen unless we are going to go to China and get those batteries. So a number of us are working to try to solve the problem. I think that is the appropriate response. I hope this is a topic where we can work together and that we are in bipartisan support, much as we did on the CHIPS Act, where Senator Warner, the senior Senator from Virginia, and I introduced that bill back in June of 2020, and we ended up passing that into law, as I indicated earlier, because both sides of the aisle saw a need to come together and come up with a solution. We need a solution in this area, too. Well, our colleagues on the other side have repeatedly prioritized some ideological obsession with all electric vehicles over the practical ramifications. Most Americans can't afford to purchase these pricey vehicles. Given the war on fossil fuels, our electric grid may not be able to sustain them, even if they could. By increasing our reliance on battery-powered vehicles, we are certain to increase our reliance on China. Given the major costs and risks, you have to ask, is this really worth it? Can we afford the risks? Will it actually--can it actually work? Will this have an impact on emissions as our friends across the aisle seem to believe? The answer is no. China is responsible for nearly one-third of all global emissions. As I said, they build more new coal-fired power plants than any other place on the planet. So China is responsible for nearly one-third of all global emissions, more than 2\1/2\ times the amount emitted by the United States. When it comes to U.S. emissions, passenger vehicles are only a fraction of the total. In 2021, the entire transportation sector accounted for 28 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. So if every car and every truck on the road was operated by an electric battery and electric vehicle courtesy of China, that would only account for 28 percent of the emissions. So this is not a solution to what our colleagues across the aisle are actually saying they are trying to do. Transportation is a significant source of emissions, beating out electricity production, industry, and agriculture, but that doesn't mean that personal vehicles are responsible for 28 percent of the emissions, because you have to include cars, SUVs and minivans, and trucks that drive all across America. So regular working families driving their kids to school or to work account for a little over one-half of the transportation emissions. The remainder comes from semitrucks, airplanes, trains, buses, ships, pipelines. In total, personal vehicles account for a little over 16 percent, and the U.S. emissions account for only 12.5 percent of global emissions. So we are not talking about a solution that our friends across the aisle say they want to accomplish. We are not going to eliminate our dependence on all of the above sources of energy, and we are certainly not going to solve what they perceive as a problem with the climate by forcing hardworking American families to subsidize electric cars for rich people. My purpose in speaking today is to demonstrate that these goals set out for by the President and which our colleagues have voted for in pursuit of their climate agenda are unrealistic. They are dangerous, and they are shortsighted. We will continue to shine a bright light on the facts as I have tried to do today so the American people can understand exactly what is going on here. This is more a pursuit of an ideological agenda rather than a practical solution to the real problem. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2023-05-04-pt1-PgS1540-2 | null | 6,196 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, over a decade ago, when President Obama was in office and Apple's iPad was just hitting the market, our intelligence agencies began to notice a disturbing pattern. Chinese-made communications equipment was multiplying across our country, placed on top of cell towers throughout the Midwest. Equipment made by Chinese State-backed companies like Huawei and ZTE spread across my own home State of Nebraska, as well as nearby Colorado and Montana. Curiously, these technologies were clustering near critical military locations in midwestern States. Nebraska is home to sensitive areas, like Offutt Air Force Base and a number of nuclear missile silos. Well, the FBI looked into it. And they discovered that at least one Chinese company--Huawei--was regularly selling its equipment to rural providers at cheap prices that appeared unprofitable. But once installed, the equipment would be located right next to American military assets. The Chinese Communist Party is actively seeking ways to disrupt Department of Defense communications. And that is why we cannot allow communications equipment made in China next door to our military sites. This is just one example of the pervasive threat Chinese-made equipment in our communications networks poses to our national security. We know that the Chinese Communist Party intends to exploit these vulnerabilities for all kinds of activities, including espionage. That is why, in 2020, the Federal Communications Commission banned the use of its funds to expand or maintain networks containing any Huawei or ZTE equipment. Since then, the Commission banned all equipment authorizations for several Chinese tech firms that pose threats to national security--blocking their imports and sale. We also passed a law in Congress approving $1.9 billion to secure our communications infrastructure--to rip out the Chinese network gear and replace it with secure equipment. It has been years, but not all of this dangerous Chinese gear has been replaced. Approximately 24,000 pieces of Chinese-made equipment remain in 8,400 different locations across our country. Nearly all of the 85 companies approved by the FCC are still waiting for that Federal reimbursement money, because they aren't able to pay to replace the technologies without help. The FCC's program is facing a budget shortfall of $3.08 billion. The sum of money that we first approved based on initial estimates is not going to cut it. That financial uncertainty means smaller, regional carriers--after being mandated by the Federal Government to rip out the equipment--won't receive the money they need to replace that high-risk Chinese technology. I have heard from rural carriers that this basically leaves them with two options: one, go out of business; or, two, to never replace the equipment after they remove it, and, instead, that would reduce the size of their wireless networks. Either option would be devastating for communities, especially communities in rural areas. We need more, not less, connectivity. And we need more, not fewer, jobs. That is not just true in Nebraska but across this country. Think about it. If these carriers go out of business or they reduce coverage, that is going to leave thousands of residents without wireless services--services that are essential for work, emergencies, and life in the 20th century. And people traveling through these vast areas of our country, they often won't have any services either. Addressing this funding shortfall is urgent. The FCC has a July 15 deadline by which reimbursement requests are due. If Congress doesn't act quickly to fix this issue before that July deadline, there won't be enough funds to cover costs. This would impact communities in 49--49--States, plus our United States territories. Without action now, we face incomplete removal of high-risk Chinese equipment from U.S. networks--wasting the money that Congress has already passed. I have introduced the Defend Our Networks Act to remedy this problem. Protecting our national security is vital, and it is also vital that we ensure the government's response to protect our security does not put smaller companies out of business. The Defend Our Networks Act does both. It would allocate $3.08 billion of unobligated COVID-19 emergency relief funds to the rip and replace program. That is only 3 percent of the unobligated emergency funds. I introduced this bill with my colleague Senator Hickenlooper because securing our communications infrastructure, it is a national, it is a bipartisan, issue. The FCC commissioners, including Chairwoman Rosenworcel, have come out in strong support, demonstrating the importance of getting this done. Just a week ago, I had the opportunity to question Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo about this big problem that we have, and she agreed that we must address it immediately. Over the coming weeks, I expect that we will continue to gain more bipartisan momentum. And I will continue to push for the swift passage of the Defend Our Networks Act, even as standalone legislation. Spy balloons and secret police stations have recently reminded us of the Chinese Communist Party's sly and underhanded espionage tactics. If we cannot completely remove risky Chinese telecommunications equipment, how can the American people expect us to defend them from the threats that China poses? We did the right thing when we passed the Secure and Trusted Communication Networks Act to establish the rip and replace program. Now, let's do the right thing again by completing the funding so that we can follow through on what we said we would do. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. FISCHER | Senate | CREC-2023-05-04-pt1-PgS1540 | null | 6,197 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, over a decade ago, when President Obama was in office and Apple's iPad was just hitting the market, our intelligence agencies began to notice a disturbing pattern. Chinese-made communications equipment was multiplying across our country, placed on top of cell towers throughout the Midwest. Equipment made by Chinese State-backed companies like Huawei and ZTE spread across my own home State of Nebraska, as well as nearby Colorado and Montana. Curiously, these technologies were clustering near critical military locations in midwestern States. Nebraska is home to sensitive areas, like Offutt Air Force Base and a number of nuclear missile silos. Well, the FBI looked into it. And they discovered that at least one Chinese company--Huawei--was regularly selling its equipment to rural providers at cheap prices that appeared unprofitable. But once installed, the equipment would be located right next to American military assets. The Chinese Communist Party is actively seeking ways to disrupt Department of Defense communications. And that is why we cannot allow communications equipment made in China next door to our military sites. This is just one example of the pervasive threat Chinese-made equipment in our communications networks poses to our national security. We know that the Chinese Communist Party intends to exploit these vulnerabilities for all kinds of activities, including espionage. That is why, in 2020, the Federal Communications Commission banned the use of its funds to expand or maintain networks containing any Huawei or ZTE equipment. Since then, the Commission banned all equipment authorizations for several Chinese tech firms that pose threats to national security--blocking their imports and sale. We also passed a law in Congress approving $1.9 billion to secure our communications infrastructure--to rip out the Chinese network gear and replace it with secure equipment. It has been years, but not all of this dangerous Chinese gear has been replaced. Approximately 24,000 pieces of Chinese-made equipment remain in 8,400 different locations across our country. Nearly all of the 85 companies approved by the FCC are still waiting for that Federal reimbursement money, because they aren't able to pay to replace the technologies without help. The FCC's program is facing a budget shortfall of $3.08 billion. The sum of money that we first approved based on initial estimates is not going to cut it. That financial uncertainty means smaller, regional carriers--after being mandated by the Federal Government to rip out the equipment--won't receive the money they need to replace that high-risk Chinese technology. I have heard from rural carriers that this basically leaves them with two options: one, go out of business; or, two, to never replace the equipment after they remove it, and, instead, that would reduce the size of their wireless networks. Either option would be devastating for communities, especially communities in rural areas. We need more, not less, connectivity. And we need more, not fewer, jobs. That is not just true in Nebraska but across this country. Think about it. If these carriers go out of business or they reduce coverage, that is going to leave thousands of residents without wireless services--services that are essential for work, emergencies, and life in the 20th century. And people traveling through these vast areas of our country, they often won't have any services either. Addressing this funding shortfall is urgent. The FCC has a July 15 deadline by which reimbursement requests are due. If Congress doesn't act quickly to fix this issue before that July deadline, there won't be enough funds to cover costs. This would impact communities in 49--49--States, plus our United States territories. Without action now, we face incomplete removal of high-risk Chinese equipment from U.S. networks--wasting the money that Congress has already passed. I have introduced the Defend Our Networks Act to remedy this problem. Protecting our national security is vital, and it is also vital that we ensure the government's response to protect our security does not put smaller companies out of business. The Defend Our Networks Act does both. It would allocate $3.08 billion of unobligated COVID-19 emergency relief funds to the rip and replace program. That is only 3 percent of the unobligated emergency funds. I introduced this bill with my colleague Senator Hickenlooper because securing our communications infrastructure, it is a national, it is a bipartisan, issue. The FCC commissioners, including Chairwoman Rosenworcel, have come out in strong support, demonstrating the importance of getting this done. Just a week ago, I had the opportunity to question Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo about this big problem that we have, and she agreed that we must address it immediately. Over the coming weeks, I expect that we will continue to gain more bipartisan momentum. And I will continue to push for the swift passage of the Defend Our Networks Act, even as standalone legislation. Spy balloons and secret police stations have recently reminded us of the Chinese Communist Party's sly and underhanded espionage tactics. If we cannot completely remove risky Chinese telecommunications equipment, how can the American people expect us to defend them from the threats that China poses? We did the right thing when we passed the Secure and Trusted Communication Networks Act to establish the rip and replace program. Now, let's do the right thing again by completing the funding so that we can follow through on what we said we would do. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. FISCHER | Senate | CREC-2023-05-04-pt1-PgS1540 | null | 6,198 |
formal | secure the border | null | anti-Latino | Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Maryland and appreciate the opportunity to make my remarks before this session ends today. I rise to once again call attention to the growing and unprecedented crisis at our southern border. This crisis is a result of the Biden administration's open border policy. It is a function of the Biden administration's failure to secure the border and enforce our laws. In fiscal year 2022, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the CBP, encountered almost 2.4 million individuals attempting to illegally cross the southern border. That was an increase of 37 percent from fiscal year 2021 and a more than 400-percent increase from fiscal year 2020. In the first 6 months of fiscal year 2023, Customs and Border Protection had already--already--encountered more than 1.5 million individuals--a pace that will surpass even the record numbers of last year. Now, with the title 42 public health order set to expire next week, it is only getting worse. Take a look. Anybody can turn on their television and check it out. It is only getting worse. In response to the expected surge of illegal crossings, the Biden administration announced that they are going to send 1,500 troops to the southern border to help with paperwork. Well, it is good they are sending the troops down there, but without a change in the policy, it is not going to get the job done. They are not able to do the job that they can do and need to do. The Customs and Border Protection officers and agents on the frontlines do the best job possible, but they face an impossible task given the Biden administration's actions that continue to exacerbate the crisis--the Biden administration's open border policy. I have seen firsthand the work of these dedicated individuals, including of the members of the North Dakota National Guard from my home State. I have traveled down to Texas on numerous occasions to draw attention to the border crisis. I have been to Del Rio. I have been to Eagle Pass. I have been to El Paso and to the Rio Grande Valley. In each of these border towns, it is clear now more than ever that more needs to be done. And it is not just the stopping of illegal migration; it is to prevent human trafficking and to prevent drug trafficking. This affects every State in our country. I also traveled with a bipartisan congressional delegation to Mexico, to Ecuador, to Colombia, and to Guatemala to outline the need to work with these nations to stop illegal immigration and prevent drug trafficking and human trafficking. These are all part of our efforts to draw attention to the problem and outline solutions that will stem the tide of illegal immigration. To stop this crisis, the Biden administration has to change its policy, and there are several things that can be done right now to make that happen. First, the Biden administration needs to implement the Migrant Protection Protocols or the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy, which requires people seeking asylum at our southern border to wait in Mexico while their cases are adjudicated. Second, reinstate the safe third country agreements, which require individuals coming from places like El Salvador or Honduras or Guatemala to seek asylum in their own countries first or they are returned to their countries to await the outcome of their claims. Now, title 42 expires on May 11. The border is already in crisis, and it will just get worse, but the reality is, if those two policies are reinstated, then the Customs and Border Protection professionals can get on top of the problem. In other words, let them do their jobs. Put in place border policies that will enable our Customs and Border Protection professionals to do their jobs. It has been shown that those policies will work. I just gave you the numbers going back to 2020. We are not guessing on this. We are not guessing. We know it works. Those two policy changes will enable our Customs and Border Protection professionals to get control of the border, and with title 42 expiring on May 11, they need to be implemented now. We have to do more. We need our border wall. We need personnel. We need technology. All those things need to be part of creating a secure border. But right now, particularly with title 42 expiring, we need to implement those two policy changes and enable our Customs and Border Protection professionals to do their job. Border security is national security. With that, I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. HOEVEN | Senate | CREC-2023-05-04-pt1-PgS1544-2 | null | 6,199 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.