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 | cut taxes | null | racist | Republican Tax Plan Now, Mr. President, on the Republican tax plan that is over there in the House, while Democrats have spent the last 2 years lowering energy costs, lowering the price of prescription drugs, and bringing manufacturing jobs to our shores, Republicans are doubling down on what they do best: pushing tax giveaways to large corporations and the ultrawealthy. A few years ago, the Trump GOP tax cuts proved to be a dud for our economy and a political loser for the Republican Party. We all remember, in 2017, they said: This is going to help us win the election. And, by 2018, they couldn't even bring it up because we Democrats had made clear to the American people that this wasn't aimed at the middle class or working class; it was aimed at the very rich--corporate and individual. But Republicans don't learn from their mistakes, apparently. This morning, the GOP-led House Ways and Means Committee is going to advance a sweeping array of new tax giveaways that reward the wealthy and the well-connected while leaving ordinary families in the lurch. This latest GOP tax scam feels like a bad rerun, where the biggest winners are giant companies, big oil polluters, and the highest--the very highest--income households. After the Trump tax law blew a nearly $2 trillion hole in our national deficit, forecasters say this new Republican proposal would increase the deficit by another trillion dollars. Again, their proposal over in the House increases the deficit by another trillion dollars, by objective forecasters. These are the same Republicans who just pushed our country to the brink of catastrophic default in the name of fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction, and now, before the ink is even dry on avoiding default, the same Republicans want to blow another trillion-dollar hole into the deficit--what hypocrisy, what hypocrisy, what hypocrisy. First, they would say: We have got to default if we don't deal with the deficit. Then they come back and blow a hole--or propose to blow a hole--in the deficit by another trillion dollars so they can help the very, very, most elite in the country. Of course, Republicans only care about the deficit when it suits them. When the deficit gets in the way, Republicans preach the fantasy that their tax cuts will somehow pay for themselves and that the benefits will magically trickle down to the rest of the country. But facts are stubborn. The economic reality of the past few decades shows that these Republican trickle-down claims are bunkum. It has been refuted over and over again. You know, this has come up. I remember Jude Wanniski and all of these rightwingers and Wall Street Journal editorials in the eighties: Cut taxes, and the deficit will go down. It didn't happen, especially when you cut taxes on the rarified few at the top of the income scale. So it doesn't work. We all saw what happened the last time Republicans pushed tax cuts for the very, very elite--for the top, top economic end of America--in 2017. There was no historic wave of economic activity. There was no trickle-down stemming from the huge benefits Republicans gave to the wealthy. Instead, the Trump tax cuts translated into huge profits for shareholders and trillions--record trillions--of dollars in corporate stock buybacks. We saw the vast majority of Americans reject these Republican policies when they went to the ballot box. We even saw Republicans afraid to talk about it as we got closer to the elections in 2018. So, if Republicans really want to help working- and middle-class families, if they really want to lower the deficit as they have claimed for years, they will stop pushing this irredeemably flawed tax package. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-13-pt1-PgS2056-3 | null | 6,400 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Republican Tax Plan Now, Mr. President, on the Republican tax plan that is over there in the House, while Democrats have spent the last 2 years lowering energy costs, lowering the price of prescription drugs, and bringing manufacturing jobs to our shores, Republicans are doubling down on what they do best: pushing tax giveaways to large corporations and the ultrawealthy. A few years ago, the Trump GOP tax cuts proved to be a dud for our economy and a political loser for the Republican Party. We all remember, in 2017, they said: This is going to help us win the election. And, by 2018, they couldn't even bring it up because we Democrats had made clear to the American people that this wasn't aimed at the middle class or working class; it was aimed at the very rich--corporate and individual. But Republicans don't learn from their mistakes, apparently. This morning, the GOP-led House Ways and Means Committee is going to advance a sweeping array of new tax giveaways that reward the wealthy and the well-connected while leaving ordinary families in the lurch. This latest GOP tax scam feels like a bad rerun, where the biggest winners are giant companies, big oil polluters, and the highest--the very highest--income households. After the Trump tax law blew a nearly $2 trillion hole in our national deficit, forecasters say this new Republican proposal would increase the deficit by another trillion dollars. Again, their proposal over in the House increases the deficit by another trillion dollars, by objective forecasters. These are the same Republicans who just pushed our country to the brink of catastrophic default in the name of fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction, and now, before the ink is even dry on avoiding default, the same Republicans want to blow another trillion-dollar hole into the deficit--what hypocrisy, what hypocrisy, what hypocrisy. First, they would say: We have got to default if we don't deal with the deficit. Then they come back and blow a hole--or propose to blow a hole--in the deficit by another trillion dollars so they can help the very, very, most elite in the country. Of course, Republicans only care about the deficit when it suits them. When the deficit gets in the way, Republicans preach the fantasy that their tax cuts will somehow pay for themselves and that the benefits will magically trickle down to the rest of the country. But facts are stubborn. The economic reality of the past few decades shows that these Republican trickle-down claims are bunkum. It has been refuted over and over again. You know, this has come up. I remember Jude Wanniski and all of these rightwingers and Wall Street Journal editorials in the eighties: Cut taxes, and the deficit will go down. It didn't happen, especially when you cut taxes on the rarified few at the top of the income scale. So it doesn't work. We all saw what happened the last time Republicans pushed tax cuts for the very, very elite--for the top, top economic end of America--in 2017. There was no historic wave of economic activity. There was no trickle-down stemming from the huge benefits Republicans gave to the wealthy. Instead, the Trump tax cuts translated into huge profits for shareholders and trillions--record trillions--of dollars in corporate stock buybacks. We saw the vast majority of Americans reject these Republican policies when they went to the ballot box. We even saw Republicans afraid to talk about it as we got closer to the elections in 2018. So, if Republicans really want to help working- and middle-class families, if they really want to lower the deficit as they have claimed for years, they will stop pushing this irredeemably flawed tax package. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-13-pt1-PgS2056-3 | null | 6,401 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | Republican Tax Plan Now, Mr. President, on the Republican tax plan that is over there in the House, while Democrats have spent the last 2 years lowering energy costs, lowering the price of prescription drugs, and bringing manufacturing jobs to our shores, Republicans are doubling down on what they do best: pushing tax giveaways to large corporations and the ultrawealthy. A few years ago, the Trump GOP tax cuts proved to be a dud for our economy and a political loser for the Republican Party. We all remember, in 2017, they said: This is going to help us win the election. And, by 2018, they couldn't even bring it up because we Democrats had made clear to the American people that this wasn't aimed at the middle class or working class; it was aimed at the very rich--corporate and individual. But Republicans don't learn from their mistakes, apparently. This morning, the GOP-led House Ways and Means Committee is going to advance a sweeping array of new tax giveaways that reward the wealthy and the well-connected while leaving ordinary families in the lurch. This latest GOP tax scam feels like a bad rerun, where the biggest winners are giant companies, big oil polluters, and the highest--the very highest--income households. After the Trump tax law blew a nearly $2 trillion hole in our national deficit, forecasters say this new Republican proposal would increase the deficit by another trillion dollars. Again, their proposal over in the House increases the deficit by another trillion dollars, by objective forecasters. These are the same Republicans who just pushed our country to the brink of catastrophic default in the name of fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction, and now, before the ink is even dry on avoiding default, the same Republicans want to blow another trillion-dollar hole into the deficit--what hypocrisy, what hypocrisy, what hypocrisy. First, they would say: We have got to default if we don't deal with the deficit. Then they come back and blow a hole--or propose to blow a hole--in the deficit by another trillion dollars so they can help the very, very, most elite in the country. Of course, Republicans only care about the deficit when it suits them. When the deficit gets in the way, Republicans preach the fantasy that their tax cuts will somehow pay for themselves and that the benefits will magically trickle down to the rest of the country. But facts are stubborn. The economic reality of the past few decades shows that these Republican trickle-down claims are bunkum. It has been refuted over and over again. You know, this has come up. I remember Jude Wanniski and all of these rightwingers and Wall Street Journal editorials in the eighties: Cut taxes, and the deficit will go down. It didn't happen, especially when you cut taxes on the rarified few at the top of the income scale. So it doesn't work. We all saw what happened the last time Republicans pushed tax cuts for the very, very elite--for the top, top economic end of America--in 2017. There was no historic wave of economic activity. There was no trickle-down stemming from the huge benefits Republicans gave to the wealthy. Instead, the Trump tax cuts translated into huge profits for shareholders and trillions--record trillions--of dollars in corporate stock buybacks. We saw the vast majority of Americans reject these Republican policies when they went to the ballot box. We even saw Republicans afraid to talk about it as we got closer to the elections in 2018. So, if Republicans really want to help working- and middle-class families, if they really want to lower the deficit as they have claimed for years, they will stop pushing this irredeemably flawed tax package. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-13-pt1-PgS2056-3 | null | 6,402 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Republican Tax Plan Now, Mr. President, on the Republican tax plan that is over there in the House, while Democrats have spent the last 2 years lowering energy costs, lowering the price of prescription drugs, and bringing manufacturing jobs to our shores, Republicans are doubling down on what they do best: pushing tax giveaways to large corporations and the ultrawealthy. A few years ago, the Trump GOP tax cuts proved to be a dud for our economy and a political loser for the Republican Party. We all remember, in 2017, they said: This is going to help us win the election. And, by 2018, they couldn't even bring it up because we Democrats had made clear to the American people that this wasn't aimed at the middle class or working class; it was aimed at the very rich--corporate and individual. But Republicans don't learn from their mistakes, apparently. This morning, the GOP-led House Ways and Means Committee is going to advance a sweeping array of new tax giveaways that reward the wealthy and the well-connected while leaving ordinary families in the lurch. This latest GOP tax scam feels like a bad rerun, where the biggest winners are giant companies, big oil polluters, and the highest--the very highest--income households. After the Trump tax law blew a nearly $2 trillion hole in our national deficit, forecasters say this new Republican proposal would increase the deficit by another trillion dollars. Again, their proposal over in the House increases the deficit by another trillion dollars, by objective forecasters. These are the same Republicans who just pushed our country to the brink of catastrophic default in the name of fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction, and now, before the ink is even dry on avoiding default, the same Republicans want to blow another trillion-dollar hole into the deficit--what hypocrisy, what hypocrisy, what hypocrisy. First, they would say: We have got to default if we don't deal with the deficit. Then they come back and blow a hole--or propose to blow a hole--in the deficit by another trillion dollars so they can help the very, very, most elite in the country. Of course, Republicans only care about the deficit when it suits them. When the deficit gets in the way, Republicans preach the fantasy that their tax cuts will somehow pay for themselves and that the benefits will magically trickle down to the rest of the country. But facts are stubborn. The economic reality of the past few decades shows that these Republican trickle-down claims are bunkum. It has been refuted over and over again. You know, this has come up. I remember Jude Wanniski and all of these rightwingers and Wall Street Journal editorials in the eighties: Cut taxes, and the deficit will go down. It didn't happen, especially when you cut taxes on the rarified few at the top of the income scale. So it doesn't work. We all saw what happened the last time Republicans pushed tax cuts for the very, very elite--for the top, top economic end of America--in 2017. There was no historic wave of economic activity. There was no trickle-down stemming from the huge benefits Republicans gave to the wealthy. Instead, the Trump tax cuts translated into huge profits for shareholders and trillions--record trillions--of dollars in corporate stock buybacks. We saw the vast majority of Americans reject these Republican policies when they went to the ballot box. We even saw Republicans afraid to talk about it as we got closer to the elections in 2018. So, if Republicans really want to help working- and middle-class families, if they really want to lower the deficit as they have claimed for years, they will stop pushing this irredeemably flawed tax package. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-13-pt1-PgS2056-3 | null | 6,403 |
formal | working class | null | racist | Republican Tax Plan Now, Mr. President, on the Republican tax plan that is over there in the House, while Democrats have spent the last 2 years lowering energy costs, lowering the price of prescription drugs, and bringing manufacturing jobs to our shores, Republicans are doubling down on what they do best: pushing tax giveaways to large corporations and the ultrawealthy. A few years ago, the Trump GOP tax cuts proved to be a dud for our economy and a political loser for the Republican Party. We all remember, in 2017, they said: This is going to help us win the election. And, by 2018, they couldn't even bring it up because we Democrats had made clear to the American people that this wasn't aimed at the middle class or working class; it was aimed at the very rich--corporate and individual. But Republicans don't learn from their mistakes, apparently. This morning, the GOP-led House Ways and Means Committee is going to advance a sweeping array of new tax giveaways that reward the wealthy and the well-connected while leaving ordinary families in the lurch. This latest GOP tax scam feels like a bad rerun, where the biggest winners are giant companies, big oil polluters, and the highest--the very highest--income households. After the Trump tax law blew a nearly $2 trillion hole in our national deficit, forecasters say this new Republican proposal would increase the deficit by another trillion dollars. Again, their proposal over in the House increases the deficit by another trillion dollars, by objective forecasters. These are the same Republicans who just pushed our country to the brink of catastrophic default in the name of fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction, and now, before the ink is even dry on avoiding default, the same Republicans want to blow another trillion-dollar hole into the deficit--what hypocrisy, what hypocrisy, what hypocrisy. First, they would say: We have got to default if we don't deal with the deficit. Then they come back and blow a hole--or propose to blow a hole--in the deficit by another trillion dollars so they can help the very, very, most elite in the country. Of course, Republicans only care about the deficit when it suits them. When the deficit gets in the way, Republicans preach the fantasy that their tax cuts will somehow pay for themselves and that the benefits will magically trickle down to the rest of the country. But facts are stubborn. The economic reality of the past few decades shows that these Republican trickle-down claims are bunkum. It has been refuted over and over again. You know, this has come up. I remember Jude Wanniski and all of these rightwingers and Wall Street Journal editorials in the eighties: Cut taxes, and the deficit will go down. It didn't happen, especially when you cut taxes on the rarified few at the top of the income scale. So it doesn't work. We all saw what happened the last time Republicans pushed tax cuts for the very, very elite--for the top, top economic end of America--in 2017. There was no historic wave of economic activity. There was no trickle-down stemming from the huge benefits Republicans gave to the wealthy. Instead, the Trump tax cuts translated into huge profits for shareholders and trillions--record trillions--of dollars in corporate stock buybacks. We saw the vast majority of Americans reject these Republican policies when they went to the ballot box. We even saw Republicans afraid to talk about it as we got closer to the elections in 2018. So, if Republicans really want to help working- and middle-class families, if they really want to lower the deficit as they have claimed for years, they will stop pushing this irredeemably flawed tax package. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-13-pt1-PgS2056-3 | null | 6,404 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the Northwestern Wildcats for winning this year's National Collegiate Athletics Association--NCAA--Division I Women's Lacrosse Championship. This historic victory marks the team's first national title since 2012, nearly a decade in the making. Clinching a championship comes down to a series of moments: split-second decisions during showdowns on the field, putting in extra sprints after practice, and taking time to strategize after a close loss. For the Northwestern women's lacrosse team, this year's victory can be traced back to one moment in 2002. That was the year Northwestern started its varsity women's lacrosse program with Coach Kelly Amonte Hiller at the helm, a role she still holds to this day. A lacrosse legend in her own right, Coach Amonte Hiller has cultivated a culture of excellence at Northwestern. During her first year, Coach Amonte Hiller built an impressive team, recruiting players from across the country and adding students from around campus. Two players on the inaugural team had never even played lacrosse. Nonetheless, Coach Amonte Hiller saw something in the young team--and her instincts were right: The players, who began as freshmen, went on to finish the 2005 season 21-0. It was the first time the Wildcats were crowned national champions, but not the last. And with their victory in 2005, Northwestern became the first non-Eastern Time Zone school--male or female--to win an NCAA national championship in lacrosse. In every season that followed, Coach Amonte Hiller led the Wildcats to the NCAA finals--and secured the championship eight times. Throughout her tenure, Coach Amonte Hiller has been applauded for her recruitment efforts--searching for players across the country and shaking up the model for what collegiate lacrosse teams traditionally have looked like. While lacrosse was invented by Native Americans, collegiate teams have been predominantly White, with the majority of recruits coming from the East Coast. Instead of limiting her recruiting efforts to this area of the country, Coach Amonte Hiller has sought to discover talent from all over. In fact, one member of the Wildcats was inspired to play at Northwestern as a young athlete, after watching a fellow Black player and Texas native, who Coach Amonte Hiller had recruited, compete in the NCAA finals. And in 2011, ``ESPN The Magazine'' named Coach Amonte Hiller one of the 20 best recruiters across all college sports, joining the ranks of other NCAA championship winning coaches. Resilience can be defined as believing in the possibility of success and remaining determined to overcome any challenge. And the Wildcats rise to this year's NCAA national championship was a masterclass in resilience. Last season, after a bitter loss that knocked Northwestern out of the semifinals, alongside season-long injuries that kept key players on the sidelines, the Wildcats dusted themselves off and committed themselves to bringing home a national title. Several players even made the decision to stay on campus and play in their fifth year of eligibility as graduate students, which meant putting their postgraduation plans on hold. And it was a sacrifice worth making. The Wildcats never shied away from a challenge, and the team filled their schedule with tough, matchups. They opened the 2023 season with a game against a top-ranked team, which they lost by a single point. It was the Wildcats' first and final loss of the season, and they began a 21-game winning streak. In the championship game, the Wildcats faced Boston College. With vital contributions from both freshman players and graduate students alike, the depth of the Wildcats' bench was on full display. They finished the game with a 12-point lead. And as a result, for the first time in 11 years, the Northwestern Wildcats claimed the national title. The continued success of this program has inspired young athletes throughout the region. The expansion of lacrosse to other colleges and westward, along with the rise in demand for youth lacrosse in Illinois, is a testament to the excitement Northwestern has helped generate. Since that fateful moment in 2002, when Amonte Hiller took the reins as coach, Northwestern has emerged as a powerhouse in women's lacrosse. I would like to congratulate every member of the Northwestern Wildcats women's lacrosse team, and especially Coach Kelly Amonte Hiller for her years of leadership. This year's national championship will be Amonte Hiller's eighth national title, matching Navy coach, Cindy Timchal, for the most won championships in women's college lacrosse history. Coach Kelly Amonte Hiller and her team represent the best of Illinois. I hope their resilience, dedication, and commitment will continue to serve as an inspiration for young athletes across the country for years to come. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-06-13-pt1-PgS2064 | null | 6,405 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-1506. 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-1507. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Determination Under section 7034(I)(5) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2023 (Div. K, P.L. 117-328)''; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-1508. 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-1509. A communication from the Chair of the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Inspector General's Semiannual Report for the six- month period from October 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1510. A communication from the Chairman, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Amtrak, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Inspector General's Semiannual Report to Congress for the period from October 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1511. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Department's Semiannual Report of the Inspector General for the period from October 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1512. A communication from the Board Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Administration's Semiannual Report of the Inspector General and the Semiannual Management Report on the Status of Audits for the period from October 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023 received in the Office of the President pro tempore; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1513. A communication from the Secretary of Labor, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Department's Semiannual Report of the Inspector General for the period from October 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1514. 15A communication from the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Agency's Semiannual Report of the Office of Inspector General for the period from October 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1515. A communication from the Deputy Inspector General for Audit Services, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Department of Health and Human Services Met Many Requirements, but It Did Not Fully Comply With the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 and Applicable Improper Payment Guidance for Fiscal Year 2022''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1516. A communication from the Chairman of the Railroad Retirement Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Board's Semiannual Report of the Inspector General for the period from October 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1517. A communication from the Executive Director of the Acquisition, Policy, and Oversight, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation; Safeguarding of Controlled Unclassified Information (HSAR Case 2015-001)'' (RIN1601-AA76) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 26, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1518. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 25-104, ``Motor Vehicle and Homeowner Insurance Prior Approval Rate Filing Temporary Amendment Act of 2023''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1519. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 25-105, ``Migrant Services Eligibility Clarification Temporary Amendment Act of 2023''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1520. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 25-106, ``Historic Preservation of Derelict District Properties Extension Temporary Amendment Act of 2023''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1521. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 25-104, ``Medical Cannabis Clarification Supplemental Temporary Amendment Act of 2023''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1522. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 25-104, ``African American Civil War Museum and Ben's Chili Bowl Limited Grant-Making Authority Temporary Amendment Act of 2023''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1523. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 25-110, ``Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Information Sharing Temporary Amendment Act of 2023''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1524. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 25-98, ``Davon T. McNeal, III Way Designation Act of 2023''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1525. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 25-99, ``Cassandra S. Pinkney Way Designation Act of 2023''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1526. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 25-100, ``Wooten Court Designation Act of 2023''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1527. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 25-101, ``Rev. Lloyd Young Court Designation Act of 2023''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1528. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 25-102, ``Copay Accumulator Amendment Act of 2023''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1529. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 25-103, ``William Dorsey Swann Street Designation Act of 2023''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1530. 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 Small Business and Entrepreneurship. EC-1531. A communication from the Associate Administrator, Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Small Business Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Affiliation and Lending Criteria for the SBA Business Loan Programs'' (RIN3245-AH87) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 6, 2023; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. EC-1532. A communication from the Associate Administrator, Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Small Business Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Affiliation and Lending Criteria for the SBA Business Loan Programs; Correction'' (RIN3245-AH87) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 6, 2023; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. EC-1533. A communication from the Associate Administrator, Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Small Business Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Small Business Lending Company (SBLC) Moratorium Rescission and Removal of the Requirement for a Loan Authorization'' (RIN3245-AH87) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 6, 2023; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. EC-1534. A communication from the Director of Congressional Affairs, Federal Election Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Contributions in the Name of Another'' (Notice 2023-09); to the Committee on Rules and Administration. EC-1535. A communication from the Deputy Chief of the Policy and Rules Division, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Make Non-Substantive Editorial Revisions to Part 2'' (ET Docket No. 21-232) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 6, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1536. A communication from the Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Consumer Product Safety Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Direct Final Rule to Amend Safety Standard for Bedside Sleepers'' (Docket No. CPSC-2012-0067) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 6, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1537. A communication from the Deputy Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act Electronic Filing System'' (PS Docket No. 22-217) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 6, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-13-pt1-PgS2066-4 | null | 6,406 |
formal | urban | null | racist | The following petition or memorial was laid before the Senate and was referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated: POM-28. A resolution adopted by the Senate of Louisiana urging the United States Congress to enact a trade policy that supports United States businesses and workers while penalizing global polluters; to the Committee on Finance. Senate Resolution No. 53 Whereas, Chinese government-owned industry is an arm of the communist party and strives to increase its influence over the global economy by pursuing predatory, unfair trade practices designed to steal intellectual property and destroy competition from the United States; and Whereas, China's dominance of key components of the global supply chain, including those related to critical minerals, represents a threat to United States economic security and economic and social development; and Whereas, China, by far the world's largest polluter, accounts for approximately thirty percent of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and subsidizes its exports by not imposing or enforcing reasonable environmental and labor standards; and Whereas, the United States has eliminated more carbon emissions than any other country in the last fifteen years, and its economy is forty-four percent more carbon efficient than the world average; and Whereas, United States' manufacturers are more efficient in nearly every industry from steel to solar panels to automobiles and yet are forced to compete with companies in China and elsewhere that face few limits on how much they pollute; and Whereas, goods produced in China, on average, generate three times the CO2 emissions of equivalent goods made in the United States, and goods produced in Russia emit four times the emissions; and Whereas, minerals mined in China are more than twice as carbon intensive as those mined in the United States, the average carbon intensity of Russian oil is at least thirty- three percent higher than United States oil, and Russian natural gas is sixty percent more greenhouse gas intensive than United States natural gas; and Whereas, many rural Americans are being left behind economically, suffering from severe poverty, poor health care, and few economic opportunities, making them increasingly vulnerable to crime and the opioid crisis; and Whereas, the average per capita income for rural Americans is only forty-six thousand dollars, compared to roughly sixty thousand dollars for all Americans, and the poverty rate in rural America is fourteen point four percent, compared with eleven point nine percent nationwide; and Whereas, United States rural communities have lower wages, property taxes, and land prices, which should give them a competitive advantage in attracting investments in manufacturing that provide revenue streams that help fund local schools and infrastructure; and Whereas, manufacturing jobs pay a more important role in the rural economy than in urban areas, accounting for a greater share of jobs and earnings; and Whereas, United States' trade policy, which has given foreign polluters an unfair advantage over the past two decades, has encouraged economic restructuring across rural America that has resulted in manufacturing employment falling by close to thirty percent; and Whereas, China has been the major beneficiary of this poorly designed federal trade policy, with the United States losing roughly five million jobs in the last twenty years, and half of those losses are the result of the United States trade deficit with China; and Whereas, rewarding United States firms for their environmental performance would bolster domestic manufacturing and generate good paying jobs, particularly in rural areas, and reduce dependence on imports from high emitting producers like Russia and China: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate of the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby memorialize the Congress of the United States to take such actions as are necessary to enact a trade policy that holds high-polluting countries like China and Russia accountable for their pollution and promotes American economic development and the rebuilding of United States supply chains, particularly in rural communities, by rewarding American businesses and workers for their superior environmental performance while penalizing global polluters; and be it further Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution shall be transmitted to the secretary of the United States Senate and the clerk of the United States House of Representatives and to each member of the Louisiana delegation to the United States Congress. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-13-pt1-PgS2067 | null | 6,407 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | At the request of Mr. Daines, the name of the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt) was added as a cosponsor of S. 16, a bill to prohibit the award of Federal funds to an institution of higher education that hosts or is affiliated with a student-based service site that provides abortion drugs or abortions to students of the institution or to employees of the institution or site, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-13-pt1-PgS2071-2 | null | 6,408 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. Peters, Mr. King, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Padilla, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Booker, Mr. Tester, Mr. Manchin, and Mr. Van Hollen) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 248 Whereas hundreds of millions of individuals in the United States participate in outdoor recreation annually; Whereas Congress enacted the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act of 2016 (Public Law 114-249; 130 Stat. 999) to assess and analyze the outdoor recreation economy of the United States and the effects attributable to the outdoor recreation economy on the overall economy of the United States; Whereas the Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account, updated in November 2022 by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce, shows that outdoor recreation generated more than $862,000,000,000 in economic output in 2021, comprising approximately 2 percent of the current-dollar gross domestic product; Whereas the Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account shows that, in 2021, the outdoor recreation sector grew 3 times faster than the overall economy of the United States, while also providing 4,500,000 jobs across the United States; Whereas the Great American Outdoors Act (Public Law 116- 152; 134 Stat. 682) provides billions of dollars to help eliminate the maintenance backlog on public lands and waters and fully funds the Land and Water Conservation Fund; Whereas regular outdoor recreation is associated with economic growth, positive health outcomes, and better quality of life; Whereas outdoor recreation activities at the Federal, State, and local levels have seen a recent surge in participation; Whereas many outdoor recreation businesses are small businesses that are cornerstones of rural communities, and outdoor recreation is part of the national heritage of the United States; Whereas it is imperative that the United States ensure that access to outdoor recreation is available to all its people for generations to come; and Whereas June 2023 is an appropriate month to designate as ``Great Outdoors Month'' to provide an opportunity to celebrate the importance of the great outdoors: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates June 2023 as ``Great Outdoors Month''; and (2) encourages all individuals in the United States to responsibly participate in recreation activities in the great outdoors during June 2023 and year-round. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-13-pt1-PgS2074-2 | null | 6,409 |
formal | COIN | null | transphobic | 250TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS COMMEMORATIVE COIN | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-13-pt1-PgS2076-3 | null | 6,410 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing the bill (S. 467) to modify the age requirement for the Student Incentive Payment Program of the State maritime academies. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-06-14-pt1-PgH2926-2 | null | 6,411 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of Rule XX, the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution (H. Res. 272) calling on the Government of the Russian Federation to immediately release United States citizen Paul Whelan. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-06-14-pt1-PgH2926 | null | 6,412 |
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-2023-06-14-pt1-PgH2932-2 | null | 6,413 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. CRANE: H.J. Res. 71. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7: ``No money shall be drawn from Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.'' The single subject of this legislation is: The purpose of this bill is to end the national emergency proclamation in Iraw enacted in 2003. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-06-14-pt1-PgH2934-20 | null | 6,414 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia: H.J. Res. 72. 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: Amends the Constitution to prohibit slavery in the United States by eliminating the Exceptions Clause in the 13th Amendment. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-06-14-pt1-PgH2934-21 | null | 6,415 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. WOMACK: H.J. Res. 73. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article V, U.S. Constitution: ``The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution . . .'' The single subject of this legislation is: A Constitutional Ammendment giving Congress the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-06-14-pt1-PgH2934-22 | null | 6,416 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, I rise today to share a resolution of support for the Pledge of Allegiance as an expression of patriotism and to honor the 246th anniversary of the creation of our U.S. flag. Today, we celebrate Flag Day. As we pause to recognize all that our flag represents, let us also honor those who have sacrificed everything to defend it. In 2002, Senator Tom Daschle raised a similar resolution with unanimous support from the Senate. It passed on the floor uneventfully. Today, I ask this body to reaffirm our support of the Pledge of Allegiance. I rise today also to honor a Hoosier who understood the innate value of the Pledge of Allegiance to our civic education. In 1969, Red Skelton, the American entertainer who was well known for his program ``The Red Skelton Hour,'' wrote a speech on the importance of the pledge. Reflecting on his time in Vincennes, IN--not many miles from where I was born and raised in Jasper--he spoke about the values instilled in the students by one of his high school teachers. After the performance of the speech, CBS received 200,000 requests for copies. The speech would go on to be sold as a single by Columbia Records and performed at the White House for President Nixon. To honor Mr. Skelton's memory and the importance of the pledge, I will recite his speech today on the Senate floor. In the words of Mr. Red Skelton, as applicable today as it was many years ago: When I was a small boy in Vincennes, Indiana, I heard, I think, one of the most outstanding speeches I ever heard in my life. I think it compares with the Sermon on the Mount, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and Socrates' speech to the students. We had just finished reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, and he [Mr. Lasswell, the Principal of Vincennes High School] called us all together and he says: `[Uh] boys and girls, I have been listening to you recite the Pledge of Allegiance all semester, and it seems it has become monotonous to you. Or, could it be, you do not understand the meaning of each word? If I may, I would like to recite the pledge and give you a definition for each word. I--Me; an individual; a committee of one. Pledge--Dedicate all of my worldly good to give without self-pity. Allegiance--My love and my devotion. To the Flag--Our standard. ``Old Glory''; a symbol of courage. And wherever she waves, there is respect, because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts, ``Freedom is everybody's job.'' ``Of the United''--That means we have all come together. States--Individual communities that have united into 48 great States; 48 individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose; all divided by imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common cause, and that's love of country-- And, of course, 48 States dates when that was done-- Of America. And to the Republic--A Republic: a sovereign state in which power is invested into the representatives chosen by the people to govern; and the government is the people; and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people. For which it stands. One Nation--Meaning ``so blessed by God.'' Under God. Indivisible--Incapable of being divided. With Liberty--Which is freedom; the right of power for one to live his own life without fears, threats, or any sort of retaliation. And Justice--The principle and qualities of dealing fairly with others. For all--For All. That means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine. Afterwards, Mr. Lasswell asked his students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance together with newfound appreciation for the words. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I call upon the U.S. Senate to recommit to the meaning of these words. This is why today, on National Flag Day, I am requesting unanimous consent from my colleagues that my resolution expressing support of the Pledge of Allegiance is passed. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 252, which is at the desk. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BRAUN | Senate | CREC-2023-06-14-pt1-PgS2091-2 | null | 6,417 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. BRAUN (for himself, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Lee, Mr. Risch, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Rounds, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Ms. Collins, Mr. Schmitt, Mr. Young, Mr. Boozman, Mrs. Britt, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Graham, Mr. Vance, Mr. Budd, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Tuberville, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Scott of South Carolina) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 252 Whereas, on June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress approved the design of a flag of the United States; Whereas, over the years, the flag of the United States has preserved the standards of the original design comprised of alternating red and white stripes accompanied by a union consisting of white stars on a field of blue; Whereas, on May 30, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson issued Presidential Proclamation 1335, an announcement asking the people of the United States to observe June 14 as Flag Day; Whereas, on August 3, 1949, President Harry Truman signed into law House Joint Resolution 170, 81st Congress, a joint resolution designating June 14 of each year as Flag Day; Whereas, on August 21, 1959, President Dwight Eisenhower issued Executive Order 10834 (24 Fed. Reg. 6865), an order establishing the most recent design of the flag of the United States; Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, and first published in the September 8, 1892, issue of The Youth's Companion; Whereas, in 1954, Congress added the words ``under God'' to the Pledge of Allegiance; Whereas, for more than 60 years, the Pledge of Allegiance has included references to the United States flag, to the United States having been established as a union ``under God'', and to the United States being dedicated to securing ``liberty and justice for all''; Whereas, in 1954, Congress believed it was acting constitutionally when it revised the Pledge of Allegiance; Whereas the United States was founded on principles of religious freedom by the Founders, many of whom were deeply religious; Whereas the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States embodies principles intended to guarantee freedom of religion through the free exercise thereof and by prohibiting the Government from establishing a religion; Whereas patriotic songs, engravings on United States legal tender, and engravings on Federal buildings also contain general references to ``God''; Whereas, in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004), the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 328 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. 2003), a case in which the Ninth Circuit concluded that recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by a public school teacher violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; Whereas the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit subsequently concluded that-- (1) the previous opinion of that court in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 328 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. 2003) was no longer binding precedent; (2) case law from the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States had subsequently changed after the decision in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004); and (3) Congress, in passing the new version of the Pledge of Allegiance, had established a secular purpose for the use of the term ``under God''; and Whereas, in light of those conclusions, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by public school teachers: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) celebrates the 246th anniversary of the creation of the flag of the United States; (2) recognizes that the Pledge of Allegiance has been a valuable part of life for the people of the United States for generations; and (3) affirms that the Pledge of Allegiance is a constitutional expression of patriotism and strongly defends the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-14-pt1-PgS2101 | null | 6,418 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Mr. BRAUN (for himself, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Lee, Mr. Risch, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Rounds, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Ms. Collins, Mr. Schmitt, Mr. Young, Mr. Boozman, Mrs. Britt, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Graham, Mr. Vance, Mr. Budd, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Tuberville, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Scott of South Carolina) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 252 Whereas, on June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress approved the design of a flag of the United States; Whereas, over the years, the flag of the United States has preserved the standards of the original design comprised of alternating red and white stripes accompanied by a union consisting of white stars on a field of blue; Whereas, on May 30, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson issued Presidential Proclamation 1335, an announcement asking the people of the United States to observe June 14 as Flag Day; Whereas, on August 3, 1949, President Harry Truman signed into law House Joint Resolution 170, 81st Congress, a joint resolution designating June 14 of each year as Flag Day; Whereas, on August 21, 1959, President Dwight Eisenhower issued Executive Order 10834 (24 Fed. Reg. 6865), an order establishing the most recent design of the flag of the United States; Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, and first published in the September 8, 1892, issue of The Youth's Companion; Whereas, in 1954, Congress added the words ``under God'' to the Pledge of Allegiance; Whereas, for more than 60 years, the Pledge of Allegiance has included references to the United States flag, to the United States having been established as a union ``under God'', and to the United States being dedicated to securing ``liberty and justice for all''; Whereas, in 1954, Congress believed it was acting constitutionally when it revised the Pledge of Allegiance; Whereas the United States was founded on principles of religious freedom by the Founders, many of whom were deeply religious; Whereas the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States embodies principles intended to guarantee freedom of religion through the free exercise thereof and by prohibiting the Government from establishing a religion; Whereas patriotic songs, engravings on United States legal tender, and engravings on Federal buildings also contain general references to ``God''; Whereas, in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004), the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 328 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. 2003), a case in which the Ninth Circuit concluded that recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by a public school teacher violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; Whereas the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit subsequently concluded that-- (1) the previous opinion of that court in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 328 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. 2003) was no longer binding precedent; (2) case law from the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States had subsequently changed after the decision in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004); and (3) Congress, in passing the new version of the Pledge of Allegiance, had established a secular purpose for the use of the term ``under God''; and Whereas, in light of those conclusions, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by public school teachers: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) celebrates the 246th anniversary of the creation of the flag of the United States; (2) recognizes that the Pledge of Allegiance has been a valuable part of life for the people of the United States for generations; and (3) affirms that the Pledge of Allegiance is a constitutional expression of patriotism and strongly defends the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-14-pt1-PgS2101 | null | 6,419 |
formal | religious freedom | null | homophobic | Mr. BRAUN (for himself, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Lee, Mr. Risch, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Rounds, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Ms. Collins, Mr. Schmitt, Mr. Young, Mr. Boozman, Mrs. Britt, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Graham, Mr. Vance, Mr. Budd, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Tuberville, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Scott of South Carolina) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 252 Whereas, on June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress approved the design of a flag of the United States; Whereas, over the years, the flag of the United States has preserved the standards of the original design comprised of alternating red and white stripes accompanied by a union consisting of white stars on a field of blue; Whereas, on May 30, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson issued Presidential Proclamation 1335, an announcement asking the people of the United States to observe June 14 as Flag Day; Whereas, on August 3, 1949, President Harry Truman signed into law House Joint Resolution 170, 81st Congress, a joint resolution designating June 14 of each year as Flag Day; Whereas, on August 21, 1959, President Dwight Eisenhower issued Executive Order 10834 (24 Fed. Reg. 6865), an order establishing the most recent design of the flag of the United States; Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, and first published in the September 8, 1892, issue of The Youth's Companion; Whereas, in 1954, Congress added the words ``under God'' to the Pledge of Allegiance; Whereas, for more than 60 years, the Pledge of Allegiance has included references to the United States flag, to the United States having been established as a union ``under God'', and to the United States being dedicated to securing ``liberty and justice for all''; Whereas, in 1954, Congress believed it was acting constitutionally when it revised the Pledge of Allegiance; Whereas the United States was founded on principles of religious freedom by the Founders, many of whom were deeply religious; Whereas the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States embodies principles intended to guarantee freedom of religion through the free exercise thereof and by prohibiting the Government from establishing a religion; Whereas patriotic songs, engravings on United States legal tender, and engravings on Federal buildings also contain general references to ``God''; Whereas, in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004), the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 328 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. 2003), a case in which the Ninth Circuit concluded that recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by a public school teacher violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; Whereas the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit subsequently concluded that-- (1) the previous opinion of that court in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 328 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. 2003) was no longer binding precedent; (2) case law from the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States had subsequently changed after the decision in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004); and (3) Congress, in passing the new version of the Pledge of Allegiance, had established a secular purpose for the use of the term ``under God''; and Whereas, in light of those conclusions, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by public school teachers: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) celebrates the 246th anniversary of the creation of the flag of the United States; (2) recognizes that the Pledge of Allegiance has been a valuable part of life for the people of the United States for generations; and (3) affirms that the Pledge of Allegiance is a constitutional expression of patriotism and strongly defends the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-14-pt1-PgS2101 | null | 6,420 |
formal | freedom of religion | null | homophobic | Mr. BRAUN (for himself, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Lee, Mr. Risch, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Rounds, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Ms. Collins, Mr. Schmitt, Mr. Young, Mr. Boozman, Mrs. Britt, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Graham, Mr. Vance, Mr. Budd, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Tuberville, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Scott of South Carolina) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 252 Whereas, on June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress approved the design of a flag of the United States; Whereas, over the years, the flag of the United States has preserved the standards of the original design comprised of alternating red and white stripes accompanied by a union consisting of white stars on a field of blue; Whereas, on May 30, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson issued Presidential Proclamation 1335, an announcement asking the people of the United States to observe June 14 as Flag Day; Whereas, on August 3, 1949, President Harry Truman signed into law House Joint Resolution 170, 81st Congress, a joint resolution designating June 14 of each year as Flag Day; Whereas, on August 21, 1959, President Dwight Eisenhower issued Executive Order 10834 (24 Fed. Reg. 6865), an order establishing the most recent design of the flag of the United States; Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, and first published in the September 8, 1892, issue of The Youth's Companion; Whereas, in 1954, Congress added the words ``under God'' to the Pledge of Allegiance; Whereas, for more than 60 years, the Pledge of Allegiance has included references to the United States flag, to the United States having been established as a union ``under God'', and to the United States being dedicated to securing ``liberty and justice for all''; Whereas, in 1954, Congress believed it was acting constitutionally when it revised the Pledge of Allegiance; Whereas the United States was founded on principles of religious freedom by the Founders, many of whom were deeply religious; Whereas the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States embodies principles intended to guarantee freedom of religion through the free exercise thereof and by prohibiting the Government from establishing a religion; Whereas patriotic songs, engravings on United States legal tender, and engravings on Federal buildings also contain general references to ``God''; Whereas, in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004), the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 328 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. 2003), a case in which the Ninth Circuit concluded that recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by a public school teacher violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; Whereas the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit subsequently concluded that-- (1) the previous opinion of that court in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 328 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. 2003) was no longer binding precedent; (2) case law from the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States had subsequently changed after the decision in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004); and (3) Congress, in passing the new version of the Pledge of Allegiance, had established a secular purpose for the use of the term ``under God''; and Whereas, in light of those conclusions, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by public school teachers: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) celebrates the 246th anniversary of the creation of the flag of the United States; (2) recognizes that the Pledge of Allegiance has been a valuable part of life for the people of the United States for generations; and (3) affirms that the Pledge of Allegiance is a constitutional expression of patriotism and strongly defends the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-14-pt1-PgS2101 | null | 6,421 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. HEINRICH (for himself and Mr. Cassidy) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 253 Whereas there exists a network of more than 150 Service and Conservation Corps across the United States that provides education, workforce development, and support services to approximately 22,000 young adults and post-9/11 veterans annually; Whereas the Service and Conservation Corps are locally- based organizations that engage young adults between 18 and 30 years of age and veterans younger than 35 years of age in service projects that address recreation, conservation, disaster response, and community needs; Whereas the Service and Conservation Corps are direct descendants of the Civilian Conservation Corps, a Great Depression-era Federal work relief program in existence from 1933 to 1942 that-- (1) mobilized 3,000,000 young men to dramatically improve the public lands of the United States; (2) provided participants with food, shelter, education, and a $30 per month stipend; and (3) planted 3,000,000,000 trees and helped build trails, roads, campgrounds, and other park infrastructure still in use today; Whereas April 5, 2023, was the 90th anniversary of President Franklin D. Roosevelt establishing the Civilian Conservation Corps with a presidential Executive order (Executive Order 6101 (relating to relief of unemployment through the performance of useful public work)); Whereas, unlike the Civilian Conservation Corps, which was a large, Federal program that was only open to young men, while Black and Native American participants faced discrimination, modern Service and Conservation Corps are equitable, diverse, and inclusive; Whereas most modern Service and Conservation Corps are nonprofit organizations or are operated by units of State or local government; Whereas, through public-private partnerships, Service and Conservation Corps work with a range of organizations, government agencies, and institutions to engage Corps participants in meaningful projects that address local and national issues; Whereas, throughout a term of service that could last from a few months to a year, Corps participants experience the ``Corps Model'' by-- (1) gaining work experience and developing in-demand skills; (2) serving on crews alongside other young adults, or in ``individual placement'' or internship positions, that provide additional capacity to Federal, State, and local resource management agencies; (3) receiving a stipend or living allowance and often an education award or scholarship upon completion of service; and (4) receiving educational programming, mentoring, and access to career and personal counseling; Whereas some Service and Conservation Corps operate or partner with charter schools to help Corps participants earn their high school diploma or GED certificate; Whereas Corps participants complete thousands of community improvement, resilience, and resource conservation projects every year; Whereas Service and Conservation Corps have longstanding partnerships with Federal, State, and local community development and resource management agencies to engage Corps participants in meaningful and necessary projects across the United States; Whereas Corps projects include-- (1) enhancing neighborhoods and community public spaces, including urban gardens; (2) preserving and protecting public lands, shorelines, waterways, habitats, and wildlife; (3) preserving historic structures; (4) providing access to and enhancing recreation on public lands and waters; (5) enhancing resilience to climate change and natural disasters; (6) mitigating, responding to, and recovering from natural disasters, including hurricanes and wildfires; (7) improving energy efficiency and resource conservation; and (8) building and maintaining alternative transportation and sustainable infrastructure; Whereas the United States urgently needs to transition to more sustainable infrastructure, respond to decades of deferred maintenance on public lands and waters, restore critical ecosystems, and make communities more resilient to climate change; Whereas unemployment and barriers to opportunity affect millions of young people in the United States and disproportionately affect young people of color; and Whereas the existing network of more than 150 Service and Conservation Corps is ready to meet the needs of young people in the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates June 16, 2023, as National Service and Conservation Corps Day; (2) congratulates the existing network of more than 150 Service and Conservation Corps on their contributions to the United States; (3) urges the people of the United States to recognize the importance of national service; and (4) supports the continuation and expansion of the national network of Service and Conservation Corps. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-14-pt1-PgS2102 | null | 6,422 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. HEINRICH (for himself and Mr. Cassidy) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 253 Whereas there exists a network of more than 150 Service and Conservation Corps across the United States that provides education, workforce development, and support services to approximately 22,000 young adults and post-9/11 veterans annually; Whereas the Service and Conservation Corps are locally- based organizations that engage young adults between 18 and 30 years of age and veterans younger than 35 years of age in service projects that address recreation, conservation, disaster response, and community needs; Whereas the Service and Conservation Corps are direct descendants of the Civilian Conservation Corps, a Great Depression-era Federal work relief program in existence from 1933 to 1942 that-- (1) mobilized 3,000,000 young men to dramatically improve the public lands of the United States; (2) provided participants with food, shelter, education, and a $30 per month stipend; and (3) planted 3,000,000,000 trees and helped build trails, roads, campgrounds, and other park infrastructure still in use today; Whereas April 5, 2023, was the 90th anniversary of President Franklin D. Roosevelt establishing the Civilian Conservation Corps with a presidential Executive order (Executive Order 6101 (relating to relief of unemployment through the performance of useful public work)); Whereas, unlike the Civilian Conservation Corps, which was a large, Federal program that was only open to young men, while Black and Native American participants faced discrimination, modern Service and Conservation Corps are equitable, diverse, and inclusive; Whereas most modern Service and Conservation Corps are nonprofit organizations or are operated by units of State or local government; Whereas, through public-private partnerships, Service and Conservation Corps work with a range of organizations, government agencies, and institutions to engage Corps participants in meaningful projects that address local and national issues; Whereas, throughout a term of service that could last from a few months to a year, Corps participants experience the ``Corps Model'' by-- (1) gaining work experience and developing in-demand skills; (2) serving on crews alongside other young adults, or in ``individual placement'' or internship positions, that provide additional capacity to Federal, State, and local resource management agencies; (3) receiving a stipend or living allowance and often an education award or scholarship upon completion of service; and (4) receiving educational programming, mentoring, and access to career and personal counseling; Whereas some Service and Conservation Corps operate or partner with charter schools to help Corps participants earn their high school diploma or GED certificate; Whereas Corps participants complete thousands of community improvement, resilience, and resource conservation projects every year; Whereas Service and Conservation Corps have longstanding partnerships with Federal, State, and local community development and resource management agencies to engage Corps participants in meaningful and necessary projects across the United States; Whereas Corps projects include-- (1) enhancing neighborhoods and community public spaces, including urban gardens; (2) preserving and protecting public lands, shorelines, waterways, habitats, and wildlife; (3) preserving historic structures; (4) providing access to and enhancing recreation on public lands and waters; (5) enhancing resilience to climate change and natural disasters; (6) mitigating, responding to, and recovering from natural disasters, including hurricanes and wildfires; (7) improving energy efficiency and resource conservation; and (8) building and maintaining alternative transportation and sustainable infrastructure; Whereas the United States urgently needs to transition to more sustainable infrastructure, respond to decades of deferred maintenance on public lands and waters, restore critical ecosystems, and make communities more resilient to climate change; Whereas unemployment and barriers to opportunity affect millions of young people in the United States and disproportionately affect young people of color; and Whereas the existing network of more than 150 Service and Conservation Corps is ready to meet the needs of young people in the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates June 16, 2023, as National Service and Conservation Corps Day; (2) congratulates the existing network of more than 150 Service and Conservation Corps on their contributions to the United States; (3) urges the people of the United States to recognize the importance of national service; and (4) supports the continuation and expansion of the national network of Service and Conservation Corps. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-14-pt1-PgS2102 | null | 6,423 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it has been a long time coming, but it is with enormous pride that I stand to celebrate the passage of the REINS Act in the House of Representatives today. This landmark legislation represents a significant step forward toward reining in the ever-expanding Federal Government. I am immensely grateful to House Republicans, to the House Freedom Caucus, and to Representative Kat Cammack, for their unwavering persistence in championing this desperately needed reform legislation. The journey of the REINS Act began years ago with profound recognition that something was fundamentally wrong with our Federal regulatory system. We realized the power wielded by these faceless Agencies was unfolding unchecked, eroding the very foundations of our Republic, rendering it unaccountable. The notion that a small group of unelected individuals could impose far-reaching regulations that affected every aspect of our lives was itself an affront to the principles upon which this great Nation was built--certainly, contrary to the rules established and embodied in the Constitution, which govern the way our government operates. Year after year, the proponents of regulatory reform within the Federal system have fought against the odds, facing resistance from those who have defended the status quo. We knew that the American people deserved better, that their voices should be heard, and that their elected representatives should have the final say. Throughout its evolution, the REINS Act has undergone refinements, fine-tuning its provisions to maintain the cutting edge, while ensuring democratic accountability. It is about reining in unchecked power, bringing spending under the watchful eye of our elected representatives, and restoring the principles of transparency and accountability. The tenets of the REINS Act are rooted in common sense in a way that every American can grasp. If you understand the concept of no taxation without representation, then it should be easy to understand the REINS Act. But what exactly does the REINS Act mean for hard-working families? Well, the entrepreneurial spirit runs deep within our country--the entire country--and certainly within my home State of Utah, driving economic growth and fostering innovation across various industries. From tech startups to local artisans, Utahns have a strong inclination to pursue their passions, start their own businesses, and create opportunities for themselves, their families, and their communities. However, this entrepreneurial spirit often faces significant hurdles, sometimes insurmountable hurdles, due to overregulation by this or that Federal Agency. It is like the feeling you get when you try to assemble a new piece of furniture from a certain Swedish retail store, and you are not quite sure if you have purchased the kejserlig or the plogfara. Yet you are bombarded with a thousand-page jargon-filled instruction manual. Federal regulations often feel like those convoluted instruction manuals, but with much higher stakes, though the titles are a little easier to pronounce. The REINS Act seeks to change that. The term ``REINS'' is an acronym that stands for Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny, and its purpose is simple: to ensure that unelected bureaucrats cannot impose major regulations on us without the consent of our elected representatives. It is about putting power back into the hands of the people and their elected representatives, where it rightfully belongs. You see, this isn't just a good idea. It is a good idea that has been embedded within the Constitution. The very first operative provision of that document--article I, section 1, clause 1--makes this clear: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. The meaning of that is clear and simple: to make law, you have to go through the Congress. There is no other way to make law. Legislative powers are powers to make law, and all legislative powers granted in the Constitution are Federal laws. Therefore, to make a Federal law, you have to follow the formula prescribed in article I, section 1. Article I, section 7 explains exactly how that has to happen. You have the same legislative proposal that has topass the House and the Senate, in identical text, before it can then be presented to the President for signature, veto, or acquiescence. The point of this is simple: The power to make law is inherently dangerous and volatile. It can harm people, just as it can protect others. For that reason, it is not to be entrusted to any branch of government other than the branch of government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals. You see, regulatory reform is more than just some esoteric concept that exists solely within Capitol Hill or in Washington, DC. Its impact reverberates across our daily lives, affecting everything from the cost of goods and services to the livelihoods of hard-working individuals and families. That is why it is about a whole lot more than just what the Constitution says and what it should be interpreted and understood to mean. It is about how this affects individuals and families. By requiring congressional approval for major regulations, for enactment of a new major rule or regulation, as if it were a legislative proposal, rather than just allowing executive branch Agencies to make new laws themselves, the REINS Act brings accountability and transparency to the rulemaking process, injecting a much needed and constitutionally prescribed dose of common sense into our bureaucratic system. The REINS Act articulates and imagines a world where small businesses are free from the weight of onerous regulations, detached from any common sense, where parents can provide for their children without being bogged down by unnecessary redtape, and where innovation and entrepreneurship thrive without the suffocating grip of excessive government control. That is the world we strive to create with the passage of the REINS Act. Now, to be clear, even with the REINS Act, from time to time some Federal regulations would end up being approved and enacted in the law by Congress. Congress, after all, can and does make mistakes, but there is a big difference when Congress makes that mistake. Members of Congress who vote for that mistake can be held accountable. Currently, they cannot. In fact, by design, they are insulated from the process, left only in a position where the best they can do is write a harshly worded letter, beating their chest, and calling the people who wrote this or that regulation at this or that Federal Agency barbarians. But, after all, our job is not about writing letters. It is about making law. Insofar as we have got other entities that are not us, run by people who are not elected by voters in our State or in any State, that is a problem, and it is a problem that we have to fix. Today, we celebrate this victory--this victory for freedom, for common sense, and for the hard-working families who deserve a government that serves, not stifles them. We owe an immense debt of gratitude to the House of Representatives and, in particular, to the House Republicans who voted for this, specifically, most notably, the Members of the House Freedom Caucus for their tireless efforts in pushing this legislation forward, reminding us all that persistence and unwavering dedication can yield remarkable results. I stand before you humbled and honored to witness this historic moment. Together, we can continue to fight for this needed reform, not just as an abstract concept, not just as something that the Constitution already requires, but also as a tangible path toward a brighter, more prosperous future for all Americans. All Americans benefit from this, but it is especially those Americans who struggle who will benefit the most from this. You have to remember that these regulations, when they are put in place, come at a cost. They are not free. It has been a few years since anyone has undertaken a comprehensive effort to estimate the total cost of complying with Federal regulations. But according to one study that I saw--it has been several years ago now since this study was produced--they estimated that the cost, while impossible to calculate in its entirety, was at least $2 trillion. When adding a whole lot of Federal regulations, including some very costly Federal regulations since that study was done, one can surmise from that that the cost is now somewhere between $2 trillion and $3 trillion. This is an enormous sum of money. Now, let's not deceive ourselves. Let's not minimize this by assuming that those costs are borne simply by wealthy Americans, by big blue-chip corporations, by someone whom we can imagine in our mind's eye as a Monopoly game piece wearing a monocle, dressed up like Mr. Peanut. No, that is not who pays for this. Who pays for this are hard-working Americans, disproportionately America's poor and middle class, who pay dearly for this. That 2 or 3 trillion-dollar figure is supported by you and me and, disproportionately, by those who are near the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. Those people who are working hard, living paycheck to paycheck, find that, as a result of these regulations, everything they buy--from cornflakes to cars, from groceries to gasoline, and everything in between--becomes more expensive. They also pay for it through diminished wages and unemployment. Those are real people who are being harmed by these things. The least we can do is, before subjecting them to even more regulations that are going to cost America's poor and middle class even more money, we owe it to them to have the decency to at least vote on these regulations before they have to comply, before they have to pay through the nose, yet again, for more and more products. Inflation has many causes, but one of the significant ones is excessive Federal regulation. Those regulations won't go away with the REINS Act, but when the REINS Act becomes law, we will at least be doing the American people the basic courtesy of voting on regulations before they have to comply. It is not too much to ask. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2023-06-14-pt1-PgS2103-5 | null | 6,424 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it has been a long time coming, but it is with enormous pride that I stand to celebrate the passage of the REINS Act in the House of Representatives today. This landmark legislation represents a significant step forward toward reining in the ever-expanding Federal Government. I am immensely grateful to House Republicans, to the House Freedom Caucus, and to Representative Kat Cammack, for their unwavering persistence in championing this desperately needed reform legislation. The journey of the REINS Act began years ago with profound recognition that something was fundamentally wrong with our Federal regulatory system. We realized the power wielded by these faceless Agencies was unfolding unchecked, eroding the very foundations of our Republic, rendering it unaccountable. The notion that a small group of unelected individuals could impose far-reaching regulations that affected every aspect of our lives was itself an affront to the principles upon which this great Nation was built--certainly, contrary to the rules established and embodied in the Constitution, which govern the way our government operates. Year after year, the proponents of regulatory reform within the Federal system have fought against the odds, facing resistance from those who have defended the status quo. We knew that the American people deserved better, that their voices should be heard, and that their elected representatives should have the final say. Throughout its evolution, the REINS Act has undergone refinements, fine-tuning its provisions to maintain the cutting edge, while ensuring democratic accountability. It is about reining in unchecked power, bringing spending under the watchful eye of our elected representatives, and restoring the principles of transparency and accountability. The tenets of the REINS Act are rooted in common sense in a way that every American can grasp. If you understand the concept of no taxation without representation, then it should be easy to understand the REINS Act. But what exactly does the REINS Act mean for hard-working families? Well, the entrepreneurial spirit runs deep within our country--the entire country--and certainly within my home State of Utah, driving economic growth and fostering innovation across various industries. From tech startups to local artisans, Utahns have a strong inclination to pursue their passions, start their own businesses, and create opportunities for themselves, their families, and their communities. However, this entrepreneurial spirit often faces significant hurdles, sometimes insurmountable hurdles, due to overregulation by this or that Federal Agency. It is like the feeling you get when you try to assemble a new piece of furniture from a certain Swedish retail store, and you are not quite sure if you have purchased the kejserlig or the plogfara. Yet you are bombarded with a thousand-page jargon-filled instruction manual. Federal regulations often feel like those convoluted instruction manuals, but with much higher stakes, though the titles are a little easier to pronounce. The REINS Act seeks to change that. The term ``REINS'' is an acronym that stands for Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny, and its purpose is simple: to ensure that unelected bureaucrats cannot impose major regulations on us without the consent of our elected representatives. It is about putting power back into the hands of the people and their elected representatives, where it rightfully belongs. You see, this isn't just a good idea. It is a good idea that has been embedded within the Constitution. The very first operative provision of that document--article I, section 1, clause 1--makes this clear: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. The meaning of that is clear and simple: to make law, you have to go through the Congress. There is no other way to make law. Legislative powers are powers to make law, and all legislative powers granted in the Constitution are Federal laws. Therefore, to make a Federal law, you have to follow the formula prescribed in article I, section 1. Article I, section 7 explains exactly how that has to happen. You have the same legislative proposal that has topass the House and the Senate, in identical text, before it can then be presented to the President for signature, veto, or acquiescence. The point of this is simple: The power to make law is inherently dangerous and volatile. It can harm people, just as it can protect others. For that reason, it is not to be entrusted to any branch of government other than the branch of government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals. You see, regulatory reform is more than just some esoteric concept that exists solely within Capitol Hill or in Washington, DC. Its impact reverberates across our daily lives, affecting everything from the cost of goods and services to the livelihoods of hard-working individuals and families. That is why it is about a whole lot more than just what the Constitution says and what it should be interpreted and understood to mean. It is about how this affects individuals and families. By requiring congressional approval for major regulations, for enactment of a new major rule or regulation, as if it were a legislative proposal, rather than just allowing executive branch Agencies to make new laws themselves, the REINS Act brings accountability and transparency to the rulemaking process, injecting a much needed and constitutionally prescribed dose of common sense into our bureaucratic system. The REINS Act articulates and imagines a world where small businesses are free from the weight of onerous regulations, detached from any common sense, where parents can provide for their children without being bogged down by unnecessary redtape, and where innovation and entrepreneurship thrive without the suffocating grip of excessive government control. That is the world we strive to create with the passage of the REINS Act. Now, to be clear, even with the REINS Act, from time to time some Federal regulations would end up being approved and enacted in the law by Congress. Congress, after all, can and does make mistakes, but there is a big difference when Congress makes that mistake. Members of Congress who vote for that mistake can be held accountable. Currently, they cannot. In fact, by design, they are insulated from the process, left only in a position where the best they can do is write a harshly worded letter, beating their chest, and calling the people who wrote this or that regulation at this or that Federal Agency barbarians. But, after all, our job is not about writing letters. It is about making law. Insofar as we have got other entities that are not us, run by people who are not elected by voters in our State or in any State, that is a problem, and it is a problem that we have to fix. Today, we celebrate this victory--this victory for freedom, for common sense, and for the hard-working families who deserve a government that serves, not stifles them. We owe an immense debt of gratitude to the House of Representatives and, in particular, to the House Republicans who voted for this, specifically, most notably, the Members of the House Freedom Caucus for their tireless efforts in pushing this legislation forward, reminding us all that persistence and unwavering dedication can yield remarkable results. I stand before you humbled and honored to witness this historic moment. Together, we can continue to fight for this needed reform, not just as an abstract concept, not just as something that the Constitution already requires, but also as a tangible path toward a brighter, more prosperous future for all Americans. All Americans benefit from this, but it is especially those Americans who struggle who will benefit the most from this. You have to remember that these regulations, when they are put in place, come at a cost. They are not free. It has been a few years since anyone has undertaken a comprehensive effort to estimate the total cost of complying with Federal regulations. But according to one study that I saw--it has been several years ago now since this study was produced--they estimated that the cost, while impossible to calculate in its entirety, was at least $2 trillion. When adding a whole lot of Federal regulations, including some very costly Federal regulations since that study was done, one can surmise from that that the cost is now somewhere between $2 trillion and $3 trillion. This is an enormous sum of money. Now, let's not deceive ourselves. Let's not minimize this by assuming that those costs are borne simply by wealthy Americans, by big blue-chip corporations, by someone whom we can imagine in our mind's eye as a Monopoly game piece wearing a monocle, dressed up like Mr. Peanut. No, that is not who pays for this. Who pays for this are hard-working Americans, disproportionately America's poor and middle class, who pay dearly for this. That 2 or 3 trillion-dollar figure is supported by you and me and, disproportionately, by those who are near the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. Those people who are working hard, living paycheck to paycheck, find that, as a result of these regulations, everything they buy--from cornflakes to cars, from groceries to gasoline, and everything in between--becomes more expensive. They also pay for it through diminished wages and unemployment. Those are real people who are being harmed by these things. The least we can do is, before subjecting them to even more regulations that are going to cost America's poor and middle class even more money, we owe it to them to have the decency to at least vote on these regulations before they have to comply, before they have to pay through the nose, yet again, for more and more products. Inflation has many causes, but one of the significant ones is excessive Federal regulation. Those regulations won't go away with the REINS Act, but when the REINS Act becomes law, we will at least be doing the American people the basic courtesy of voting on regulations before they have to comply. It is not too much to ask. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2023-06-14-pt1-PgS2103-5 | null | 6,425 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it has been a long time coming, but it is with enormous pride that I stand to celebrate the passage of the REINS Act in the House of Representatives today. This landmark legislation represents a significant step forward toward reining in the ever-expanding Federal Government. I am immensely grateful to House Republicans, to the House Freedom Caucus, and to Representative Kat Cammack, for their unwavering persistence in championing this desperately needed reform legislation. The journey of the REINS Act began years ago with profound recognition that something was fundamentally wrong with our Federal regulatory system. We realized the power wielded by these faceless Agencies was unfolding unchecked, eroding the very foundations of our Republic, rendering it unaccountable. The notion that a small group of unelected individuals could impose far-reaching regulations that affected every aspect of our lives was itself an affront to the principles upon which this great Nation was built--certainly, contrary to the rules established and embodied in the Constitution, which govern the way our government operates. Year after year, the proponents of regulatory reform within the Federal system have fought against the odds, facing resistance from those who have defended the status quo. We knew that the American people deserved better, that their voices should be heard, and that their elected representatives should have the final say. Throughout its evolution, the REINS Act has undergone refinements, fine-tuning its provisions to maintain the cutting edge, while ensuring democratic accountability. It is about reining in unchecked power, bringing spending under the watchful eye of our elected representatives, and restoring the principles of transparency and accountability. The tenets of the REINS Act are rooted in common sense in a way that every American can grasp. If you understand the concept of no taxation without representation, then it should be easy to understand the REINS Act. But what exactly does the REINS Act mean for hard-working families? Well, the entrepreneurial spirit runs deep within our country--the entire country--and certainly within my home State of Utah, driving economic growth and fostering innovation across various industries. From tech startups to local artisans, Utahns have a strong inclination to pursue their passions, start their own businesses, and create opportunities for themselves, their families, and their communities. However, this entrepreneurial spirit often faces significant hurdles, sometimes insurmountable hurdles, due to overregulation by this or that Federal Agency. It is like the feeling you get when you try to assemble a new piece of furniture from a certain Swedish retail store, and you are not quite sure if you have purchased the kejserlig or the plogfara. Yet you are bombarded with a thousand-page jargon-filled instruction manual. Federal regulations often feel like those convoluted instruction manuals, but with much higher stakes, though the titles are a little easier to pronounce. The REINS Act seeks to change that. The term ``REINS'' is an acronym that stands for Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny, and its purpose is simple: to ensure that unelected bureaucrats cannot impose major regulations on us without the consent of our elected representatives. It is about putting power back into the hands of the people and their elected representatives, where it rightfully belongs. You see, this isn't just a good idea. It is a good idea that has been embedded within the Constitution. The very first operative provision of that document--article I, section 1, clause 1--makes this clear: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. The meaning of that is clear and simple: to make law, you have to go through the Congress. There is no other way to make law. Legislative powers are powers to make law, and all legislative powers granted in the Constitution are Federal laws. Therefore, to make a Federal law, you have to follow the formula prescribed in article I, section 1. Article I, section 7 explains exactly how that has to happen. You have the same legislative proposal that has topass the House and the Senate, in identical text, before it can then be presented to the President for signature, veto, or acquiescence. The point of this is simple: The power to make law is inherently dangerous and volatile. It can harm people, just as it can protect others. For that reason, it is not to be entrusted to any branch of government other than the branch of government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals. You see, regulatory reform is more than just some esoteric concept that exists solely within Capitol Hill or in Washington, DC. Its impact reverberates across our daily lives, affecting everything from the cost of goods and services to the livelihoods of hard-working individuals and families. That is why it is about a whole lot more than just what the Constitution says and what it should be interpreted and understood to mean. It is about how this affects individuals and families. By requiring congressional approval for major regulations, for enactment of a new major rule or regulation, as if it were a legislative proposal, rather than just allowing executive branch Agencies to make new laws themselves, the REINS Act brings accountability and transparency to the rulemaking process, injecting a much needed and constitutionally prescribed dose of common sense into our bureaucratic system. The REINS Act articulates and imagines a world where small businesses are free from the weight of onerous regulations, detached from any common sense, where parents can provide for their children without being bogged down by unnecessary redtape, and where innovation and entrepreneurship thrive without the suffocating grip of excessive government control. That is the world we strive to create with the passage of the REINS Act. Now, to be clear, even with the REINS Act, from time to time some Federal regulations would end up being approved and enacted in the law by Congress. Congress, after all, can and does make mistakes, but there is a big difference when Congress makes that mistake. Members of Congress who vote for that mistake can be held accountable. Currently, they cannot. In fact, by design, they are insulated from the process, left only in a position where the best they can do is write a harshly worded letter, beating their chest, and calling the people who wrote this or that regulation at this or that Federal Agency barbarians. But, after all, our job is not about writing letters. It is about making law. Insofar as we have got other entities that are not us, run by people who are not elected by voters in our State or in any State, that is a problem, and it is a problem that we have to fix. Today, we celebrate this victory--this victory for freedom, for common sense, and for the hard-working families who deserve a government that serves, not stifles them. We owe an immense debt of gratitude to the House of Representatives and, in particular, to the House Republicans who voted for this, specifically, most notably, the Members of the House Freedom Caucus for their tireless efforts in pushing this legislation forward, reminding us all that persistence and unwavering dedication can yield remarkable results. I stand before you humbled and honored to witness this historic moment. Together, we can continue to fight for this needed reform, not just as an abstract concept, not just as something that the Constitution already requires, but also as a tangible path toward a brighter, more prosperous future for all Americans. All Americans benefit from this, but it is especially those Americans who struggle who will benefit the most from this. You have to remember that these regulations, when they are put in place, come at a cost. They are not free. It has been a few years since anyone has undertaken a comprehensive effort to estimate the total cost of complying with Federal regulations. But according to one study that I saw--it has been several years ago now since this study was produced--they estimated that the cost, while impossible to calculate in its entirety, was at least $2 trillion. When adding a whole lot of Federal regulations, including some very costly Federal regulations since that study was done, one can surmise from that that the cost is now somewhere between $2 trillion and $3 trillion. This is an enormous sum of money. Now, let's not deceive ourselves. Let's not minimize this by assuming that those costs are borne simply by wealthy Americans, by big blue-chip corporations, by someone whom we can imagine in our mind's eye as a Monopoly game piece wearing a monocle, dressed up like Mr. Peanut. No, that is not who pays for this. Who pays for this are hard-working Americans, disproportionately America's poor and middle class, who pay dearly for this. That 2 or 3 trillion-dollar figure is supported by you and me and, disproportionately, by those who are near the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. Those people who are working hard, living paycheck to paycheck, find that, as a result of these regulations, everything they buy--from cornflakes to cars, from groceries to gasoline, and everything in between--becomes more expensive. They also pay for it through diminished wages and unemployment. Those are real people who are being harmed by these things. The least we can do is, before subjecting them to even more regulations that are going to cost America's poor and middle class even more money, we owe it to them to have the decency to at least vote on these regulations before they have to comply, before they have to pay through the nose, yet again, for more and more products. Inflation has many causes, but one of the significant ones is excessive Federal regulation. Those regulations won't go away with the REINS Act, but when the REINS Act becomes law, we will at least be doing the American people the basic courtesy of voting on regulations before they have to comply. It is not too much to ask. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2023-06-14-pt1-PgS2103-5 | null | 6,426 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. Votes will be taken in the following order: The motion to recommit on H.R. 288; and Passage of H.R. 288, if ordered. The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the remaining electronic vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-06-15-pt1-PgH2944-3 | null | 6,427 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to recommit on the bill (H.R. 288) to amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify the nature of judicial review of agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory provisions, offered by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), on which the yeas and nays were ordered. The Clerk will redesignate the motion. The Clerk redesignated the motion. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-06-15-pt1-PgH2944-4 | null | 6,428 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-1235. A letter from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, Department of Defense, transmitting a Selected Acquisition Report titled, ``MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft System'', pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 4351(f); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-1236. A letter from the Director, Office of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's Technical correction -- Fair Housing Rule, Consumer Protection in Sales of Insurance Rule (RIN: 3064- AF89) received June 5, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-1237. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Administration's 2022 report to Congress, titled, ``Garrett Lee Smith Youth Suicide Prevention and Early Intervention Programs'', pursuant to Public Law 108- 355, section 3(d); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-1238. A letter from the Deputy Chief, Policy and Rules Division, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Make Non-Substantive Editorial Revisions to Part 2 [ET Docket No.: 23-108] received June 5, 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-1239. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's Major final rule -- Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2023 [NRC-2021-0024] (RIN: 3150- AK58) received June 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 Energy and Commerce. EC-1240. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a Determination under section 7034(I)(5) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2023 (Div. K, P.L. 117-328), pursuant to Public Law 117-103, div. K, title VII, Sec. 7071; (136 Stat. 682); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-1241. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a Determination under section 7034(I)(5) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2023 (Div. K, P.L. 117-328), pursuant to Public Law 117-103, div. K, title VII, Sec. 7071; (136 Stat. 682); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-1242. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report titled, ``Resolution of the Cyprus Dispute'', pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2373(c); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-1243. A letter from the Chair, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the Board's Semiannual Report to Congress of the Office of Inspector General, from October 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023; to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-1244. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Education, transmitting the Department's Office of Inspector General Semiannual Report to Congress No. 86, which covers the six-month period ending March 31, 2023, pursuant to section 5(b) of the Inspector General Act of 1978; to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-1245. A letter from the Senior Advisor, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting notification of a nomination and a designation of acting officer, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-1246. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's Office of Inspector General Semiannual Report to Congress for the period ending March 31, 2023, pursuant to Public Law 95-452; to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-1247. A letter from the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta, transmitting the 2022 management report and financial statements of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9106(a)(1); Public Law 97-258 (as amended by Public Law 101-576, Sec. 306(a)); (104 Stat. 2854); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-1248. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission, transmitting the Commission's Office of the Inspector General Semiannual Report to Congress for the period October 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023, pursuant to section 5(b) of the Inspector General Act of 1978; to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-1249. A letter from the Chairman, National Credit Union Administration, transmitting the Administration's FY 2022 No FEAR 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-1250. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1401 note; Public Law 107-296, title XIII, Sec. 1303, Nov. 25, 2002 (as amended by Public Law 117-81, div. F, title LXVI, Sec. 6604); (135 Stat. 2441); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-1251. A letter from the Acting Director, Selective Service System, transmitting the Service's FY 2024 Congressional Budget Justification, pursuant to 45 U.S.C. 231f(f); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-1252. A letter from the Chief, Branch of Domestic Listing, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Miami Tiger Beetle [Docket No.: FWS- | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-06-15-pt1-PgH2955-2 | null | 6,429 |
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-1235. A letter from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, Department of Defense, transmitting a Selected Acquisition Report titled, ``MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft System'', pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 4351(f); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-1236. A letter from the Director, Office of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's Technical correction -- Fair Housing Rule, Consumer Protection in Sales of Insurance Rule (RIN: 3064- AF89) received June 5, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-1237. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Administration's 2022 report to Congress, titled, ``Garrett Lee Smith Youth Suicide Prevention and Early Intervention Programs'', pursuant to Public Law 108- 355, section 3(d); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-1238. A letter from the Deputy Chief, Policy and Rules Division, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Make Non-Substantive Editorial Revisions to Part 2 [ET Docket No.: 23-108] received June 5, 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-1239. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's Major final rule -- Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2023 [NRC-2021-0024] (RIN: 3150- AK58) received June 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 Energy and Commerce. EC-1240. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a Determination under section 7034(I)(5) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2023 (Div. K, P.L. 117-328), pursuant to Public Law 117-103, div. K, title VII, Sec. 7071; (136 Stat. 682); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-1241. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a Determination under section 7034(I)(5) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2023 (Div. K, P.L. 117-328), pursuant to Public Law 117-103, div. K, title VII, Sec. 7071; (136 Stat. 682); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-1242. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report titled, ``Resolution of the Cyprus Dispute'', pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2373(c); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-1243. A letter from the Chair, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the Board's Semiannual Report to Congress of the Office of Inspector General, from October 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023; to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-1244. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Education, transmitting the Department's Office of Inspector General Semiannual Report to Congress No. 86, which covers the six-month period ending March 31, 2023, pursuant to section 5(b) of the Inspector General Act of 1978; to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-1245. A letter from the Senior Advisor, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting notification of a nomination and a designation of acting officer, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-1246. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's Office of Inspector General Semiannual Report to Congress for the period ending March 31, 2023, pursuant to Public Law 95-452; to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-1247. A letter from the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta, transmitting the 2022 management report and financial statements of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9106(a)(1); Public Law 97-258 (as amended by Public Law 101-576, Sec. 306(a)); (104 Stat. 2854); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-1248. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission, transmitting the Commission's Office of the Inspector General Semiannual Report to Congress for the period October 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023, pursuant to section 5(b) of the Inspector General Act of 1978; to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-1249. A letter from the Chairman, National Credit Union Administration, transmitting the Administration's FY 2022 No FEAR 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-1250. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1401 note; Public Law 107-296, title XIII, Sec. 1303, Nov. 25, 2002 (as amended by Public Law 117-81, div. F, title LXVI, Sec. 6604); (135 Stat. 2441); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-1251. A letter from the Acting Director, Selective Service System, transmitting the Service's FY 2024 Congressional Budget Justification, pursuant to 45 U.S.C. 231f(f); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-1252. A letter from the Chief, Branch of Domestic Listing, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Miami Tiger Beetle [Docket No.: FWS- | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-06-15-pt1-PgH2955-2 | null | 6,430 |
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-2023-06-15-pt1-PgH2959-2 | null | 6,431 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. GOSAR: H.J. Res. 70. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I. The single subject of this legislation is: To end the national emergency proclamation relating to Libya declared in 2011. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-06-15-pt1-PgH2959-3 | null | 6,432 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. GOSAR: H.J. Res. 74. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I The single subject of this legislation is: To end the extended national emergnecy related to Yemen declared in 2012 | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-06-15-pt1-PgH2961-18 | null | 6,433 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | By Mr. LOUDERMILK: H.J. Res. 75. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution. The single subject of this legislation is: Proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would require the Federal budget to be balanced. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-06-15-pt1-PgH2961-19 | null | 6,434 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. LOUDERMILK: H.J. Res. 75. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution. The single subject of this legislation is: Proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would require the Federal budget to be balanced. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-06-15-pt1-PgH2961-19 | null | 6,435 |
formal | cutting taxes | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, 6 months into the 118th Congress, the tale of two parties continues. This week, House Republicans advanced a massive tax package, showing precisely where their loyalties lie--in helping large, multibillion-dollar corporations, Big Oil polluters, and those at the very, very top. Today, the President is reminding the American people where Democrats' loyalties lie--with ordinary families who want to lower costs and who have had it with junk fees that nickel and dime people every single day. President Biden used his State of the Union Address to call out companies that exploit consumers through surprise fees on everything from credit cards, bank overdrafts, hotel resort purchases, and air travel. Today, he is holding a roundtable discussion with companies at the White House on the progress they have made in eliminating surprise fees. I cannot tell you how many times people have come up to me in New York, exasperated by junk fees, oftentimes at the last minute. Many times, they know nothing about them until they are asked to pay them. It is precisely the kind of abuse that frustrates Americans to no end and which the Federal Government can address. It is why, in the House, I authored legislation to protect Americans from surprise expenses on their credit card bills by requiring credit card companies to clearly break down all fees and interest rates. They call it the ``Schumer Box''--a nickname I am proud has stuck. And junk fees are everywhere. You want to switch your cell phone company? A termination fee can cost you $250 or something exorbitant like that. Many people think the phone companies ask for it so you don't switch even if you are dissatisfied with their service. You want to book a hotel room listed at $300? Good luck. You will get the bill and discover the real price is much higher. More than a third of hotel guests have reported paying some kind of hidden fee. The kind of abusive behavior from some large companies is exactly what Americans want to focus on, and it is the major difference between the two parties. Republicans think it is best to spend time on cutting taxes for the very largest, billion-dollar corporations--that often don't pay their fair share--and on stoking the fires of the culture wars. But Democrats want to focus on things ordinary families have to deal with every single day. We can all relate to the frustration of hidden fees. We can all relate to driving to work on dilapidated roads and crumbling bridges. We can all look out the window and see that wildfires, flooding, and extreme weather events are getting worse and harming our communities. These are the issues Democrats have legislated on over the past few years, and we are going to keep going. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-06-15-pt1-PgS2105-7 | null | 6,436 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, 6 months into the 118th Congress, the tale of two parties continues. This week, House Republicans advanced a massive tax package, showing precisely where their loyalties lie--in helping large, multibillion-dollar corporations, Big Oil polluters, and those at the very, very top. Today, the President is reminding the American people where Democrats' loyalties lie--with ordinary families who want to lower costs and who have had it with junk fees that nickel and dime people every single day. President Biden used his State of the Union Address to call out companies that exploit consumers through surprise fees on everything from credit cards, bank overdrafts, hotel resort purchases, and air travel. Today, he is holding a roundtable discussion with companies at the White House on the progress they have made in eliminating surprise fees. I cannot tell you how many times people have come up to me in New York, exasperated by junk fees, oftentimes at the last minute. Many times, they know nothing about them until they are asked to pay them. It is precisely the kind of abuse that frustrates Americans to no end and which the Federal Government can address. It is why, in the House, I authored legislation to protect Americans from surprise expenses on their credit card bills by requiring credit card companies to clearly break down all fees and interest rates. They call it the ``Schumer Box''--a nickname I am proud has stuck. And junk fees are everywhere. You want to switch your cell phone company? A termination fee can cost you $250 or something exorbitant like that. Many people think the phone companies ask for it so you don't switch even if you are dissatisfied with their service. You want to book a hotel room listed at $300? Good luck. You will get the bill and discover the real price is much higher. More than a third of hotel guests have reported paying some kind of hidden fee. The kind of abusive behavior from some large companies is exactly what Americans want to focus on, and it is the major difference between the two parties. Republicans think it is best to spend time on cutting taxes for the very largest, billion-dollar corporations--that often don't pay their fair share--and on stoking the fires of the culture wars. But Democrats want to focus on things ordinary families have to deal with every single day. We can all relate to the frustration of hidden fees. We can all relate to driving to work on dilapidated roads and crumbling bridges. We can all look out the window and see that wildfires, flooding, and extreme weather events are getting worse and harming our communities. These are the issues Democrats have legislated on over the past few years, and we are going to keep going. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-06-15-pt1-PgS2105-7 | null | 6,437 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, 6 months into the 118th Congress, the tale of two parties continues. This week, House Republicans advanced a massive tax package, showing precisely where their loyalties lie--in helping large, multibillion-dollar corporations, Big Oil polluters, and those at the very, very top. Today, the President is reminding the American people where Democrats' loyalties lie--with ordinary families who want to lower costs and who have had it with junk fees that nickel and dime people every single day. President Biden used his State of the Union Address to call out companies that exploit consumers through surprise fees on everything from credit cards, bank overdrafts, hotel resort purchases, and air travel. Today, he is holding a roundtable discussion with companies at the White House on the progress they have made in eliminating surprise fees. I cannot tell you how many times people have come up to me in New York, exasperated by junk fees, oftentimes at the last minute. Many times, they know nothing about them until they are asked to pay them. It is precisely the kind of abuse that frustrates Americans to no end and which the Federal Government can address. It is why, in the House, I authored legislation to protect Americans from surprise expenses on their credit card bills by requiring credit card companies to clearly break down all fees and interest rates. They call it the ``Schumer Box''--a nickname I am proud has stuck. And junk fees are everywhere. You want to switch your cell phone company? A termination fee can cost you $250 or something exorbitant like that. Many people think the phone companies ask for it so you don't switch even if you are dissatisfied with their service. You want to book a hotel room listed at $300? Good luck. You will get the bill and discover the real price is much higher. More than a third of hotel guests have reported paying some kind of hidden fee. The kind of abusive behavior from some large companies is exactly what Americans want to focus on, and it is the major difference between the two parties. Republicans think it is best to spend time on cutting taxes for the very largest, billion-dollar corporations--that often don't pay their fair share--and on stoking the fires of the culture wars. But Democrats want to focus on things ordinary families have to deal with every single day. We can all relate to the frustration of hidden fees. We can all relate to driving to work on dilapidated roads and crumbling bridges. We can all look out the window and see that wildfires, flooding, and extreme weather events are getting worse and harming our communities. These are the issues Democrats have legislated on over the past few years, and we are going to keep going. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-06-15-pt1-PgS2105-7 | null | 6,438 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Student Loans Mr. President, now on a totally different matter, in the coming days, the Supreme Court will rule on President Biden's plan to impose student loan socialism on millions of working families across America. The Court's decision will settle whether the President is allowed to use two-decade-old ``emergency'' authorities dating back to the early days of the War on Terror to put $430 billion in debt on the American taxpayers without congressional approval. But the American people don't need to wait for the Supreme Court to explain to them why letting wealthy people dine and dash doesn't make sense; they know the Biden administration's plan adds up to a raw deal. Almost a third of all student debt in America is held by the wealthiest 20 percent of households. Only 8 percent--8 percent--is held by the bottom 20 percent of households. Sure enough, one prominent analysis found that more than 70 percent of President Biden's so-called loan forgiveness could go to the top 60 percent of earners. It is no surprise when you consider that the median annual income of young college graduates is 55 percent higher than folks working with high school diplomas. In some cases, Americans who choose to go to college already have an extra leg up. More students at the Nation's most elite colleges have parents among the top 1 percent of earners than the bottom 50 percent. The facts are so clear--so clear--that even a former top Obama administration economist has admitted that``across-the-board student loan forgiveness is regressive''--student loan forgiveness is regressive. So, Mr. President, it is really pretty simple. Millions of Americans choose--choose--to take on student loan debt and unlock higher earning potential. Millions of other Americans choose not to take on debt and make sacrifices to avoid it. The Biden administration wants to take that basic choice away and impose student loan socialism instead. They want working Americans to take on $430 billion in debt they didn't sign up for, just to pad the pockets of Washington Democrats' base. What a raw deal. Senate Republicans know that complex issues require thoughtful solutions, not partisan hatchet jobs. That is why several of our colleagues are working hard on legislation that actually gets to the root of soaring tuition costs. Senators Cassidy, Grassley, Cornyn, Daines, Tuberville, and Tim Scott have put forward ideas to increase transparency before students sign up for massive debt, to streamline repayment plans, and to go after the advanced-degree loans that are particularly responsible for driving up prices. I am grateful to our colleagues for their work on real solutions. On the other hand, the Biden administration's student loan socialism plan is painfully, painfully unfair, and very soon we will find out if it isn't just downright illegal. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-15-pt1-PgS2106-6 | null | 6,439 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Now, Mr. President, on nominations, well, it has been a busy week for nominations here on the floor. This morning, the Senate will confirm Nusrat Choudhury, whom I was proud to recommend to President Biden to serve as district judge for New York's Eastern District. When President Biden listened to my recommendation and nominated Ms. Choudhury, she made history as the first Bangladeshi American ever to be nominated to the Federal bench, and, today, Ms. Choudhury will make history as the first Bangladeshi American ever to be confirmed to the Federal bench. Ms. Choudhury will also be the first Muslim American woman and only the second Muslim American ever to serve as a Federal judge. It shows she is a history maker in more ways than one. Ms. Choudhury is also a shining example of the American dream: the daughter of immigrant parents, a graduate of Columbia, Princeton, and Yale Law School. Ms. Choudhury has dedicated her career to making sure all people can have their voices heard in court. It is a great day for our country. Our courts are at their strongest when they mirror the diversity and dynamism of our democracy. We have a vibrant Bangladeshi community in New York and in the United States. I am confident Ms. Choudhury will make an excellent judge. Yesterday, the Senate also confirmed another excellent judge, Dale Ho, whom I was proud to recommend to be district judge for the Southern District of New York. As voting rights continue to come under attack, it is only fitting that we elevated one of the country's top voting rights experts to the bench to safeguard our democracy and preserve our most fundamental right as citizens. With Mr. Ho and Ms. Choudhury, we will have confirmed 21 Asian Americans to the bench. Let me say that again. With these two new nominations, we will have confirmed 21 Asian Americans to the bench, a demographic that has been historically underrepresented in the judiciary. I am proud of this majority's record of increasing both the demographic and professional diversity on the bench. This is how we strengthen the public's trust in our judiciary. And our work will continue. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-06-15-pt1-PgS2106 | null | 6,440 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Now, Mr. President, on nominations, well, it has been a busy week for nominations here on the floor. This morning, the Senate will confirm Nusrat Choudhury, whom I was proud to recommend to President Biden to serve as district judge for New York's Eastern District. When President Biden listened to my recommendation and nominated Ms. Choudhury, she made history as the first Bangladeshi American ever to be nominated to the Federal bench, and, today, Ms. Choudhury will make history as the first Bangladeshi American ever to be confirmed to the Federal bench. Ms. Choudhury will also be the first Muslim American woman and only the second Muslim American ever to serve as a Federal judge. It shows she is a history maker in more ways than one. Ms. Choudhury is also a shining example of the American dream: the daughter of immigrant parents, a graduate of Columbia, Princeton, and Yale Law School. Ms. Choudhury has dedicated her career to making sure all people can have their voices heard in court. It is a great day for our country. Our courts are at their strongest when they mirror the diversity and dynamism of our democracy. We have a vibrant Bangladeshi community in New York and in the United States. I am confident Ms. Choudhury will make an excellent judge. Yesterday, the Senate also confirmed another excellent judge, Dale Ho, whom I was proud to recommend to be district judge for the Southern District of New York. As voting rights continue to come under attack, it is only fitting that we elevated one of the country's top voting rights experts to the bench to safeguard our democracy and preserve our most fundamental right as citizens. With Mr. Ho and Ms. Choudhury, we will have confirmed 21 Asian Americans to the bench. Let me say that again. With these two new nominations, we will have confirmed 21 Asian Americans to the bench, a demographic that has been historically underrepresented in the judiciary. I am proud of this majority's record of increasing both the demographic and professional diversity on the bench. This is how we strengthen the public's trust in our judiciary. And our work will continue. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-06-15-pt1-PgS2106 | null | 6,441 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in June, our Nation celebrates National Immigrant Heritage Month. It is a reminder that, with the exception of Native Americans and the descendants of enslaved people, every one of us shares something in common with the families arriving in America today, and that is the fact that our own ancestors once traveled far and wide to reach this land of liberty and opportunity. In my case, it was my grandmother. The year was 1911. She was forced to flee her home in Lithuania. She boarded a ship in Germany, bound for America, carrying two things in her arms: her Catholic prayer book and my infant mother. She arrived in our country with the same hopes as every immigrant who comes to America--from the immigrant business owners in my State of Illinois and communities like Little Village to all of the immigrant farm workers who keep food on our tables. And today, the month of June is not only a chance to celebrate America's heritage as a nation of immigrants, it should also serve as a call to action for us in Congress. That is because today, June 15th, marks the 11th anniversary of a life-changing program for a group of young people who share my mother's story--the Deferred Action For Childhood Arrival Program, DACA. Back in 2010, on a bipartisan basis, the late Republican Senator Richard Lugar and I asked President Obama to use his power as President to protect from deportation hundreds of thousands of young people, many of whom arrived in our country as infants and toddlers, like my mom. And 11 years ago today, President Obama responded. He announced that he would use his executive authority to create the DACA Program. These young people are known generally as Dreamers. They have grown up alongside our kids and grandkids. They pledge allegiance, as you said so many times, to the same American flag, and many have gone on to serve our Nation as members of the United States Armed Forces, first responders, and much more. In fact, over the years, Dreamers have become a household name. They have touched the hearts of Americans because in them, we see ourselves, our own history, our own families. Dreamers have earned their place in the American story. But right now, they are still waiting on this Congress to finish the job that President Obama started with DACA. This program was always intended to be a temporary solution. The permanent solution is obvious: Enact legislation--bipartisan legislation--that was introduced more than two decades ago--the DREAM Act. It would provide a path to citizenship for Dreamers all across America. Without the protections of the DREAM Act, these young people have been forced to live a life of uncertainty. They have to renew their status every 2 years, which means they can only plan their lives in two-year installments. Today I want to tell you the story about one Dreamer. Her name is Sumbul Siddiqui. Her story is the 136th Dreamer story that I have shared on the Senate floor. Sumbul's family moved to the State of Georgia from Pakistan when she was 4 years old. With most of her relatives out of the country, she relied on her neighbors in Georgia as her chosen family. Growing up, she was a star student with no shortage of passions. She spent hours in the library getting lost in books, learned to play the viola, and fell in love with the arts. In her mind, she was just like any other kid, until she started applying to college and discovered officially, legally, she was not an American citizen. So even though Sumbul graduated from high school with the highest honors, she feared that her immigration status would prevent her from pursuing a college education. Fortunately, it did not. Instead, Sumbul was awarded a private merit scholarship to attend Agnes Scott College in Atlanta, GA. During her first year, she was accepted into the DACA Program. She worked four jobs to cover the cost of tuition and graduated still a semester early with honors. She even found time to volunteer at a free health clinic. And it was in this role, working alongside doctors in her community, that she found her professional calling: medicine. So she decided to apply to a medical school that had supported Dreamers since the beginning of DACA. I am proud to say it is the Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine in Chicago. You see, back in 2012, the Stritch School of Medicine made a brave commitment. They became the first medical school in America to adjust its admission policy to welcome Dreamers. And in the years since, nearly 40 Dreamers have graduated from this program at that medical school. Last month, Dr. Sumbul Siddiqui became one of those graduates. I had the honor of speaking at her commencement ceremony before she and her fellow graduating class, which included five other DACA recipients, walked across the stage to receive their medical degrees. With her medical degree, Dr. Siddiqui plans to dedicate her career to serving families in the Chicagoland area. Soon, she will begin her residency at the University of Chicago, where she will focus on supporting underserved communities. Ask yourself a basic question: Would America be better off if Dr. Siddiqui and Dreamers like her were unable to work here in the United States, when our communities are in desperate need of doctors and nurses? Of course not. Earlier this year, I reintroduced the Dream Act with my friend, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. We have been on the cusp of passing the DREAM Act for years, but time and again, Congress has failed to finish the job. Right now, this legislation is more important than ever. That is because one judge in Texas--who has repeatedly ruled against DACA--could soon end protections for nearly 600,000 Dreamers. That would be a disaster--not just for Dreamers, but for our entire country. It is time for Congress to step up and meet our responsibility to Dreamers once and for all--as well as our responsibility for America's future--on a bipartisan basis. I think that time is already here, and I hope we will meet our obligation that is long overdue to solve this problem, not just for this wonderful young woman and the ambition she has shown to make a better life for herself, but for the future world. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-06-15-pt1-PgS2107 | null | 6,442 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Energy Mr. President, the American people, as we all know, are facing many serious--one might describe them as grave--issues, some of which fall under the purview of our U.S. Department of Energy. Average gas prices remain well above $3 a gallon. That is a hardship on a lot of Americans. That is up 50 percent since President Biden took office. Average electricity prices--that is something we have to deal with every day--have increased 14.5 percent since 2022. Our aging power grid remains at risk for devastating cyber security attacks. While China's nuclear stockpile is growing, ours is getting older, and it is getting smaller. These are weighty problems. The Presiding Officer knows that as well, if not better, than I do. These problems cost the American people a lot of money, and they place our national security at risk. They are all impacted by the U.S. Department of Energy and the policy that it creates. But instead of trying to get control over our gas prices or the national security issues I just mentioned, President Biden's administration and his Energy Department, frankly, seem more concerned about Americans' basic kitchen appliances, and suddenly dishwashers seem to be enemy No. 1. The Department of Energy recently announced that it would be proposing a new rule to regulate the amount of water and the amount of energy used by dishwashing machines nationwide. Now, under the proposed rule--I want to describe it fairly. Under the proposed rule, dishwashers will only be able to use 3.2 gallons of water per cycle. Right now, the rule allows--although dishwashers don't use this much, the rule allows a dishwasher to use 5 gallons of water per cycle. No person with a brain above a single-celled organism has asked for this change. No reasonable circumstance demands it. Instead, the Department of Energy and President Biden's administration have harkened to the extreme climate activists who, frankly, we have learned from bitter experience will find any reason to micromanage the lives of Americans, by force if necessary. Let me give you a case in point. Most American dishwashers already use less than the 5 gallons of water that are allowed under current regulations. In fact, most American dishwashers use not 5, which is allowed, but 3.5 gallons of water per cycle. Why? Because the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, gave its Energy Star standard seal of approval to any dishwasher that will use 3.5 gallons or less. So even though a dishwasher can use up to 5, to get the seal of approval, which most dishwashers have and most manufacturers want, you have to use 3.5 or less. Now, despite being EPA-approved, the Department of Energy's new rule will force manufacturers to abandon these efficient designs that we are already using to placate people who arbitrarily want not 3.5 but 3.2 gallons of water per cycle. And you may be thinking, OK, well, we will save 0.3 gallons per cycle. We will not. I want to sidetrack a moment, but this is relevant. During PresidentObama's administration, his regulators imposed a similar restriction. The results were disastrous. His rule was adopted in 2012, some may recall, and increased the price of dishwashers by $100. That is $100 in 2012 dollars; it is more today. In exchange for those higher prices, the regulation that President Obama promulgated forced Americans to buy machines that don't wash their dishes nearly as well as the older machines, and that will prove the case with this new rule that is being promulgated by the Department of Energy. Now, if you have one of these dishwashers--not the ones that have yet to be approved by the Department of Energy but the ones mandated under President Obama--you know how it goes. You have to prewash the dishes. I mean, it defeats the whole purpose of a dishwasher. If you don't prewash the dishes, half the gravy is still going to be on the plate after the first run. So that leaves families with a choice: You can run the dishwasher twice, which uses twice as much water, in order to get your dishes clean or you have to hand-wash your dishes, which is going to use about 17 gallons of water. Both of these options--and, once again, this is not the new rule yet. We are under President Obama's restrictive but less restrictive rule. Both of these options waste more water than the older washers. Now, the Department of Energy itself admits that 20 percent of families who own a dishwasher never use it. Why is that? It is not because dishwashing is fun; it is because they don't want to taste last night's jambalaya in their morning Cheerios when these weaker machines don't do their job. So now, instead of having dishwashers use enough water the first time to actually clean dishes, we are going to have even more families opting to use an average of 17 gallons of water per night to wash by hand. Let me restate this. Under President Obama's regulation, which will be made even worse by the proposed regulation by President Biden, if you wash your dishes the first time, they don't get clean. And those of you who use a dishwasher know what I am talking about. You do save water the first round, but your dishes aren't cleaned. So you are forced to use the dishwasher a second time, which uses even more water, or you are forced to wash your dishes by hand, which uses three times more water. Now, you don't need to be Euclid to see that this does not add up to water savings, and it makes even less sense when you consider the savings in electricity. The Department of Energy's new rule says it will cut the amount of energy that dishwashers can use by 27 percent. Shoot; we will all be for that. It will cut the amount of electricity, the energy, from 307 kilowatt hours annually to 223 kilowatt hours. That is for a standard dishwasher. The Department of Energy under President Biden says that this will help reduce ``carbon pollution'' and it is going to save the American people money, and, in reality, it won't. By decreasing the amount of allowed energy use by 27 percent under this new proposed rule, the new rule will save 84 kilowatt hours annually. That is fewer kilowatt hours than it takes to run an LED light bulb for a year. We are not talking about serious energy savings. How much will it save the American people? Using the very generous estimates of the Department of Energy, it is going to save Americans about 17 bucks annually every year. That is not even enough for a tank of gas under President Biden's inflation. However, once again, I will draw a parallel to the so-called water savings. Once again, the lesser performance capacity in these energy-efficient machines is going to result in more Americans choosing to run the machine twice or to hand-wash the dishes just to get the plates clean. It is important to consider the context too. Louisianans--let me talk about my State. I know my State best, just as the Presiding Officer knows his wonderful State best. Louisianans are paying an extra $740 a month--not a year, a month--because of President Biden's inflation. That is almost $9,000 a year. And most of my people are not wealthy people. Let me just read you--these are not my numbers; these are the numbers compiled by President Biden's own government. Electricity is up 20 percent; gas, 48 percent; eggs--I know they have come down a little bit, thank God. They are still up 67 percent. Potato chips are up 28 percent. Bread 27 percent. Coffee 30 percent. Rice 28 percent. Flour is up 24 percent. Milk is up 20 percent. Ice cream is up 21 percent. Chicken is up 21 percent. Bacon--I don't want to live in a world without bacon--it is up 10 percent. I could keep going. I mean, the American people and my people are burning through their savings, and they are getting priced out of the housing market, but President Biden's administration seems to be obsessed with robbing our people of access to affordable appliances that actually get the job done; and I can't think of any better evidence of the fact that, in too many instances, this administration has a fatal attraction to nutty ideas. I am not against regulation. I mean, I think the world is complicated and, in some cases, dangerous; and if we can make it more efficient and safer for our people, we ought to do it; but you have to weigh the cost and the benefit. You have to weigh the cost and the benefit. This is what we know, after doing that, under this proposed new rule. The new rule is not going to save water. It is not going to save a significant amount of energy. It is not going to save the American people money. In fact, it is going to cost them money. This new policy is not going to be a win for America, but I will tell you who it will be a win for--the People's Republic of China. China is the world's largest producer of CO2 emissions. We are reducing our CO2 emissions; China is increasing its CO2 emissions. China stands to benefit from this rule because it produces about 70 percent of the world's dishwashers, and China is probably going to produce 70 percent of the new dishwashers mandated by the Department of Energy--more business for China. The dishwasher manufacturers in China are delighted. Now, these manufacturers in China, their factories, they don't run on solar panels. They don't run off of wind energy. They are not powered by fairy dust or unicorn urine, nor do the ships that have to bring the dishwashers from China to the American consumer. They all run off fossil fuels. Some of these manufacturers in China that our Department of Energy is giving business to run off coal. Now, look, I care about our planet, and I know you do, too, Mr. President. I want clean air. I want bright water. We all do. But this new proposed rule by the Department of Energy is not going to help anything or anybody. It is only going to make the American people have to spend more money on less efficient machines. The costs dramatically outweigh the benefit. It is going to make most of them either stop using their dishwasher or use it twice, using twice as much water or energy, or frustrate them to the point that they are going to say, hey, I will just wash the dishes by hand, using three times the amount of water. And it is not just dishwashers. If it were just dishwashers, I would chalk this up to, well, we have got some regulators that we need to talk to and rein in. There are other things on this looney list. In the past few months, the Biden administration has proposed new regulations for electric motors, for beverage vending machines, for microwaves, for ovens, for refrigerators, for furnaces, for air-conditioners, for light bulbs. Get ready. In fact, the Biden administration added more than 110 regulations since it has been in office on appliances and equipment during 2 years. Most of these policies, if you weigh the cost and the benefits, make no sense--not in terms of CO2 emissions, not in terms of energy savings, not in terms of water savings, and certainly not in terms of the pocketbook of the American people. They are sops to the woke wing of the Democratic Party--not all Democrats. I am not going to paint with a broad brush here. Not all of them. But there are some members of the Democratic Party who think that we will all be better off if we had a rule for everything, and they think the American people are not capable of running their own lives. These new regulations will do little, if anything, to help the planet. But they do harm regular Americans--the Americans who get up every day, go to work, obey the law,pay their taxes, try to do the right thing by their children, and try to save a little money for retirement. That is whom these new regulations are going to hurt. All these folks want is for their dishwashers to work. They want to spend less time on dishes because they want to spend time with their families. They don't want to have to hand wash the dishes every night. That is what they bought a dishwasher for. Now, surely, the regulators who are proposing this know that, and that is why they are going to downplay--they already are--the dishwasher regulations. It is why they are going to act confused when Americans wonder if the Federal Government is coming to unhook their gas stoves next. We have heard officials from the Biden administration say: If you like your gas stove, you can keep your gas stove. Not true. I am sorry; it is just not true. This administration is willing to regulate and try to control every aspect of American life. There are people in this administration who believe that. Why? To avoid empty criticism from the looney left--the looney left, which often ignores science and always insists on more control. Don't listen to what politicians do or say. Don't. Never listen to what a politician says. You can listen to them, but you have got to compare it to what they do. What you do is what you believe; everything else is just cottage cheese. President Biden and his administration are saddling Americans with harmful--maybe even hateful--regulations because they care more about what the activists say on TikTok than they do about the quiet suffering of everyday families in America all over this country. They have a blind spot for the lives and concerns of ordinary Americans, and it is why this administration is more worried about dishwashers and gas stoves than the fact that the average Louisiana family is paying $740 more a month--not a year--because of inflation. It is why they will kill American jobs, while continuing to buy solar panels and new dishwashers from the polluters in China. It is why they will give rich people tax credits to buy electric cars. How many poor people do you know driving electric cars? It is why they will give rich people tax credits to buy electric cars while people in rural areas in rural America struggle to pay for a full tank of gas and can't even dream of buying a used car because the used cars cost 30 percent more since President Biden took office. All this is virtue signaling. To some, it may be it amusing, but it is not free. There is no free lunch, and you don't get one now. It costs money--money that Americans don't have--and it causes them pain that they don't deserve, Mr. President. The new rule on dishwashers isn't yet settled. There is still time for my colleagues at the Department of Energy to scrap this rule and walk away from this fallacious nonsense, and I hope that they will. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-15-pt1-PgS2109-3 | null | 6,443 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Energy Mr. President, the American people, as we all know, are facing many serious--one might describe them as grave--issues, some of which fall under the purview of our U.S. Department of Energy. Average gas prices remain well above $3 a gallon. That is a hardship on a lot of Americans. That is up 50 percent since President Biden took office. Average electricity prices--that is something we have to deal with every day--have increased 14.5 percent since 2022. Our aging power grid remains at risk for devastating cyber security attacks. While China's nuclear stockpile is growing, ours is getting older, and it is getting smaller. These are weighty problems. The Presiding Officer knows that as well, if not better, than I do. These problems cost the American people a lot of money, and they place our national security at risk. They are all impacted by the U.S. Department of Energy and the policy that it creates. But instead of trying to get control over our gas prices or the national security issues I just mentioned, President Biden's administration and his Energy Department, frankly, seem more concerned about Americans' basic kitchen appliances, and suddenly dishwashers seem to be enemy No. 1. The Department of Energy recently announced that it would be proposing a new rule to regulate the amount of water and the amount of energy used by dishwashing machines nationwide. Now, under the proposed rule--I want to describe it fairly. Under the proposed rule, dishwashers will only be able to use 3.2 gallons of water per cycle. Right now, the rule allows--although dishwashers don't use this much, the rule allows a dishwasher to use 5 gallons of water per cycle. No person with a brain above a single-celled organism has asked for this change. No reasonable circumstance demands it. Instead, the Department of Energy and President Biden's administration have harkened to the extreme climate activists who, frankly, we have learned from bitter experience will find any reason to micromanage the lives of Americans, by force if necessary. Let me give you a case in point. Most American dishwashers already use less than the 5 gallons of water that are allowed under current regulations. In fact, most American dishwashers use not 5, which is allowed, but 3.5 gallons of water per cycle. Why? Because the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, gave its Energy Star standard seal of approval to any dishwasher that will use 3.5 gallons or less. So even though a dishwasher can use up to 5, to get the seal of approval, which most dishwashers have and most manufacturers want, you have to use 3.5 or less. Now, despite being EPA-approved, the Department of Energy's new rule will force manufacturers to abandon these efficient designs that we are already using to placate people who arbitrarily want not 3.5 but 3.2 gallons of water per cycle. And you may be thinking, OK, well, we will save 0.3 gallons per cycle. We will not. I want to sidetrack a moment, but this is relevant. During PresidentObama's administration, his regulators imposed a similar restriction. The results were disastrous. His rule was adopted in 2012, some may recall, and increased the price of dishwashers by $100. That is $100 in 2012 dollars; it is more today. In exchange for those higher prices, the regulation that President Obama promulgated forced Americans to buy machines that don't wash their dishes nearly as well as the older machines, and that will prove the case with this new rule that is being promulgated by the Department of Energy. Now, if you have one of these dishwashers--not the ones that have yet to be approved by the Department of Energy but the ones mandated under President Obama--you know how it goes. You have to prewash the dishes. I mean, it defeats the whole purpose of a dishwasher. If you don't prewash the dishes, half the gravy is still going to be on the plate after the first run. So that leaves families with a choice: You can run the dishwasher twice, which uses twice as much water, in order to get your dishes clean or you have to hand-wash your dishes, which is going to use about 17 gallons of water. Both of these options--and, once again, this is not the new rule yet. We are under President Obama's restrictive but less restrictive rule. Both of these options waste more water than the older washers. Now, the Department of Energy itself admits that 20 percent of families who own a dishwasher never use it. Why is that? It is not because dishwashing is fun; it is because they don't want to taste last night's jambalaya in their morning Cheerios when these weaker machines don't do their job. So now, instead of having dishwashers use enough water the first time to actually clean dishes, we are going to have even more families opting to use an average of 17 gallons of water per night to wash by hand. Let me restate this. Under President Obama's regulation, which will be made even worse by the proposed regulation by President Biden, if you wash your dishes the first time, they don't get clean. And those of you who use a dishwasher know what I am talking about. You do save water the first round, but your dishes aren't cleaned. So you are forced to use the dishwasher a second time, which uses even more water, or you are forced to wash your dishes by hand, which uses three times more water. Now, you don't need to be Euclid to see that this does not add up to water savings, and it makes even less sense when you consider the savings in electricity. The Department of Energy's new rule says it will cut the amount of energy that dishwashers can use by 27 percent. Shoot; we will all be for that. It will cut the amount of electricity, the energy, from 307 kilowatt hours annually to 223 kilowatt hours. That is for a standard dishwasher. The Department of Energy under President Biden says that this will help reduce ``carbon pollution'' and it is going to save the American people money, and, in reality, it won't. By decreasing the amount of allowed energy use by 27 percent under this new proposed rule, the new rule will save 84 kilowatt hours annually. That is fewer kilowatt hours than it takes to run an LED light bulb for a year. We are not talking about serious energy savings. How much will it save the American people? Using the very generous estimates of the Department of Energy, it is going to save Americans about 17 bucks annually every year. That is not even enough for a tank of gas under President Biden's inflation. However, once again, I will draw a parallel to the so-called water savings. Once again, the lesser performance capacity in these energy-efficient machines is going to result in more Americans choosing to run the machine twice or to hand-wash the dishes just to get the plates clean. It is important to consider the context too. Louisianans--let me talk about my State. I know my State best, just as the Presiding Officer knows his wonderful State best. Louisianans are paying an extra $740 a month--not a year, a month--because of President Biden's inflation. That is almost $9,000 a year. And most of my people are not wealthy people. Let me just read you--these are not my numbers; these are the numbers compiled by President Biden's own government. Electricity is up 20 percent; gas, 48 percent; eggs--I know they have come down a little bit, thank God. They are still up 67 percent. Potato chips are up 28 percent. Bread 27 percent. Coffee 30 percent. Rice 28 percent. Flour is up 24 percent. Milk is up 20 percent. Ice cream is up 21 percent. Chicken is up 21 percent. Bacon--I don't want to live in a world without bacon--it is up 10 percent. I could keep going. I mean, the American people and my people are burning through their savings, and they are getting priced out of the housing market, but President Biden's administration seems to be obsessed with robbing our people of access to affordable appliances that actually get the job done; and I can't think of any better evidence of the fact that, in too many instances, this administration has a fatal attraction to nutty ideas. I am not against regulation. I mean, I think the world is complicated and, in some cases, dangerous; and if we can make it more efficient and safer for our people, we ought to do it; but you have to weigh the cost and the benefit. You have to weigh the cost and the benefit. This is what we know, after doing that, under this proposed new rule. The new rule is not going to save water. It is not going to save a significant amount of energy. It is not going to save the American people money. In fact, it is going to cost them money. This new policy is not going to be a win for America, but I will tell you who it will be a win for--the People's Republic of China. China is the world's largest producer of CO2 emissions. We are reducing our CO2 emissions; China is increasing its CO2 emissions. China stands to benefit from this rule because it produces about 70 percent of the world's dishwashers, and China is probably going to produce 70 percent of the new dishwashers mandated by the Department of Energy--more business for China. The dishwasher manufacturers in China are delighted. Now, these manufacturers in China, their factories, they don't run on solar panels. They don't run off of wind energy. They are not powered by fairy dust or unicorn urine, nor do the ships that have to bring the dishwashers from China to the American consumer. They all run off fossil fuels. Some of these manufacturers in China that our Department of Energy is giving business to run off coal. Now, look, I care about our planet, and I know you do, too, Mr. President. I want clean air. I want bright water. We all do. But this new proposed rule by the Department of Energy is not going to help anything or anybody. It is only going to make the American people have to spend more money on less efficient machines. The costs dramatically outweigh the benefit. It is going to make most of them either stop using their dishwasher or use it twice, using twice as much water or energy, or frustrate them to the point that they are going to say, hey, I will just wash the dishes by hand, using three times the amount of water. And it is not just dishwashers. If it were just dishwashers, I would chalk this up to, well, we have got some regulators that we need to talk to and rein in. There are other things on this looney list. In the past few months, the Biden administration has proposed new regulations for electric motors, for beverage vending machines, for microwaves, for ovens, for refrigerators, for furnaces, for air-conditioners, for light bulbs. Get ready. In fact, the Biden administration added more than 110 regulations since it has been in office on appliances and equipment during 2 years. Most of these policies, if you weigh the cost and the benefits, make no sense--not in terms of CO2 emissions, not in terms of energy savings, not in terms of water savings, and certainly not in terms of the pocketbook of the American people. They are sops to the woke wing of the Democratic Party--not all Democrats. I am not going to paint with a broad brush here. Not all of them. But there are some members of the Democratic Party who think that we will all be better off if we had a rule for everything, and they think the American people are not capable of running their own lives. These new regulations will do little, if anything, to help the planet. But they do harm regular Americans--the Americans who get up every day, go to work, obey the law,pay their taxes, try to do the right thing by their children, and try to save a little money for retirement. That is whom these new regulations are going to hurt. All these folks want is for their dishwashers to work. They want to spend less time on dishes because they want to spend time with their families. They don't want to have to hand wash the dishes every night. That is what they bought a dishwasher for. Now, surely, the regulators who are proposing this know that, and that is why they are going to downplay--they already are--the dishwasher regulations. It is why they are going to act confused when Americans wonder if the Federal Government is coming to unhook their gas stoves next. We have heard officials from the Biden administration say: If you like your gas stove, you can keep your gas stove. Not true. I am sorry; it is just not true. This administration is willing to regulate and try to control every aspect of American life. There are people in this administration who believe that. Why? To avoid empty criticism from the looney left--the looney left, which often ignores science and always insists on more control. Don't listen to what politicians do or say. Don't. Never listen to what a politician says. You can listen to them, but you have got to compare it to what they do. What you do is what you believe; everything else is just cottage cheese. President Biden and his administration are saddling Americans with harmful--maybe even hateful--regulations because they care more about what the activists say on TikTok than they do about the quiet suffering of everyday families in America all over this country. They have a blind spot for the lives and concerns of ordinary Americans, and it is why this administration is more worried about dishwashers and gas stoves than the fact that the average Louisiana family is paying $740 more a month--not a year--because of inflation. It is why they will kill American jobs, while continuing to buy solar panels and new dishwashers from the polluters in China. It is why they will give rich people tax credits to buy electric cars. How many poor people do you know driving electric cars? It is why they will give rich people tax credits to buy electric cars while people in rural areas in rural America struggle to pay for a full tank of gas and can't even dream of buying a used car because the used cars cost 30 percent more since President Biden took office. All this is virtue signaling. To some, it may be it amusing, but it is not free. There is no free lunch, and you don't get one now. It costs money--money that Americans don't have--and it causes them pain that they don't deserve, Mr. President. The new rule on dishwashers isn't yet settled. There is still time for my colleagues at the Department of Energy to scrap this rule and walk away from this fallacious nonsense, and I hope that they will. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-15-pt1-PgS2109-3 | null | 6,444 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as follows: ML-27. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, relative to House Joint Resolution No. 19, urging the United States Congress to enact legislation that will make state child abuse registries public records; to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. ML-28. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of Idaho, relative to House Joint Memorial No. 4, stating 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; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. ML-29. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of New Mexico, relative to Senate Memorial 64, supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression and urging Russia to immediately cease its attack; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. ML-30. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of Arizona, relative to House Concurrent Memorial 2007, urging the United States Congress to enact the State Immigration Enforcement Act or similar legislation; to the Committee on the Judiciary. ML-31. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of Idaho, relative to House Joint Memorial No. 2, calling on Congress to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts from hearing cases regarding state legislative authority to legislate on the abortion issue; to the Committee on the Judiciary. ML-32. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Louisiana, relative to Senate Resolution No. 53, to memorialize Congress to enact a trade policy that supports United States businesses and workers while penalizing global polluters; to the Committee on Ways and Means. ML-33. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, relative to Senate Resolution No. 9, urging the President of the United States to restart and expedite the completion of the Keystone XL pipeline, reducing the United States' and the rest of the world's reliance on Russian Energy; jointly to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Natural Resources, and Energy and Commerce. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-06-16-pt1-PgH2964-4 | null | 6,445 |
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-2023-06-16-pt1-PgH2965 | null | 6,446 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or votes objected to under House clause 6 of rule XX. The House will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-06-20-pt1-PgH2972-12 | null | 6,447 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | 118-48) The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following messagefrom the President of the United States; which was read and, together with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed:To the Congress of the United States: Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to the Western Balkans that was declared in Executive Order 13219 of June 26, 2001, under which additional steps were taken in Executive Order 13304 of May 28, 2003, and which was expanded in scope in Executive Order 14033 of June 8, 2021, is to continue in effect beyond June 26, 2023. The acts of extremist violence and obstructionist activity, and the situation in the Western Balkans, which stymies progress toward effective and democratic governance and full integration into transatlantic institutions, outlined in these Executive Orders, continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13219 with respect to the Western Balkans. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. The White House, June 20, 2023. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-06-20-pt1-PgH2977 | null | 6,448 |
formal | extremist | null | Islamophobic | 118-48) The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following messagefrom the President of the United States; which was read and, together with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed:To the Congress of the United States: Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to the Western Balkans that was declared in Executive Order 13219 of June 26, 2001, under which additional steps were taken in Executive Order 13304 of May 28, 2003, and which was expanded in scope in Executive Order 14033 of June 8, 2021, is to continue in effect beyond June 26, 2023. The acts of extremist violence and obstructionist activity, and the situation in the Western Balkans, which stymies progress toward effective and democratic governance and full integration into transatlantic institutions, outlined in these Executive Orders, continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13219 with respect to the Western Balkans. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. The White House, June 20, 2023. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-06-20-pt1-PgH2977 | null | 6,449 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1606) to amend the Small Business Act to codify the Boots to Business Program, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-06-20-pt1-PgH2978-4 | null | 6,450 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3672) to designate the clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Indian River, Michigan, as the ``Pfc. Justin T. Paton Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic'', on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-06-20-pt1-PgH2979 | null | 6,451 |
formal | Volodymyr Zelensky | null | antisemitic | Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I seek recognition to give notice of my intent to raise a question of privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: H. Res. 521, censuring Adam Schiff, Representative of the 30th Congressional District of California. Whereas, the allegation that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election has been revealed as false by numerous in-depth investigations, including the recent report by Special Counsel John Durham, which documents how the conspiracy theory was invented, funded, and spread by President's Trump's political rivals; Whereas, Representative Adam Schiff, who served as ranking minority member and then Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives (the ``Intelligence Committee''), occupied positions of extreme trust, affording him access to sensitive intelligence unavailable to most Members of Congress; Whereas, for years, Representative Schiff abused this trust by alleging that he had evidence of collusion that, as is clear from reports by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and Special Counsel Durham, never existed; Whereas, for years, Representative Schiff has spread false accusations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia; Whereas, on March 20, 2017, Representative Schiff perpetuated false allegations from the Steele Dossier accusing numerous Trump associates of colluding with Russia into the Congressional Record; Whereas, once again abusing his privileged access to classified information, Representative Schiff released a memo justifying the accuracy of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant application on Trump associate Carter Page, of which was later found by Inspector General Horowitz to have 17 major mistakes and omissions, providing FISA Court Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer to state unequivocally that the Federal Bureau of Investigation ``misled the FISC''; Whereas, as ranking minority member and Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Representative Schiff behaved dishonestly and dishonorably on many other occasions, including by publicly, falsely denying that his staff communicated with a whistleblower to launch the first impeachment of President Trump; Whereas, as part of his impeachment efforts, during a hearing on September 26, 2019, Representative Schiff misled the public by reading a false retelling of a phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky; Whereas, on March 28, 2019, every Republican member of the Intelligence Committee signed a letter calling for Representative Schiff's immediate resignation as Chairman; Whereas, Representative Schiff hindered the ability of the Intelligence Committee to fulfill its oversight responsibilities over the Intelligence Community, an indispensable pillar of our national security; and Whereas, these actions of Representative Schiff misled the American people and brought disrepute upon the House of Representatives: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That-- (1) the House of Representatives censures Adam Schiff, Representative of the 30th Congressional District of California, for misleading the American people and for conduct unbecoming of an elected Member of the House of Representatives; (2) Representative Schiff shall forthwith present himself to the well of the House of Representatives for the pronouncement of censure; (3) Representative Adam Schiff will be censured with the public reading of this resolution by the Speaker; and (4) the Committee on Ethics shall conduct an investigation into Representative Adam Schiff's falsehoods, misrepresentations, and abuse of sensitive information. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. LUNA | House | CREC-2023-06-20-pt1-PgH2980-3 | null | 6,452 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I seek recognition to give notice of my intent to raise a question of privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: H. Res. 521, censuring Adam Schiff, Representative of the 30th Congressional District of California. Whereas, the allegation that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election has been revealed as false by numerous in-depth investigations, including the recent report by Special Counsel John Durham, which documents how the conspiracy theory was invented, funded, and spread by President's Trump's political rivals; Whereas, Representative Adam Schiff, who served as ranking minority member and then Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives (the ``Intelligence Committee''), occupied positions of extreme trust, affording him access to sensitive intelligence unavailable to most Members of Congress; Whereas, for years, Representative Schiff abused this trust by alleging that he had evidence of collusion that, as is clear from reports by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and Special Counsel Durham, never existed; Whereas, for years, Representative Schiff has spread false accusations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia; Whereas, on March 20, 2017, Representative Schiff perpetuated false allegations from the Steele Dossier accusing numerous Trump associates of colluding with Russia into the Congressional Record; Whereas, once again abusing his privileged access to classified information, Representative Schiff released a memo justifying the accuracy of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant application on Trump associate Carter Page, of which was later found by Inspector General Horowitz to have 17 major mistakes and omissions, providing FISA Court Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer to state unequivocally that the Federal Bureau of Investigation ``misled the FISC''; Whereas, as ranking minority member and Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Representative Schiff behaved dishonestly and dishonorably on many other occasions, including by publicly, falsely denying that his staff communicated with a whistleblower to launch the first impeachment of President Trump; Whereas, as part of his impeachment efforts, during a hearing on September 26, 2019, Representative Schiff misled the public by reading a false retelling of a phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky; Whereas, on March 28, 2019, every Republican member of the Intelligence Committee signed a letter calling for Representative Schiff's immediate resignation as Chairman; Whereas, Representative Schiff hindered the ability of the Intelligence Committee to fulfill its oversight responsibilities over the Intelligence Community, an indispensable pillar of our national security; and Whereas, these actions of Representative Schiff misled the American people and brought disrepute upon the House of Representatives: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That-- (1) the House of Representatives censures Adam Schiff, Representative of the 30th Congressional District of California, for misleading the American people and for conduct unbecoming of an elected Member of the House of Representatives; (2) Representative Schiff shall forthwith present himself to the well of the House of Representatives for the pronouncement of censure; (3) Representative Adam Schiff will be censured with the public reading of this resolution by the Speaker; and (4) the Committee on Ethics shall conduct an investigation into Representative Adam Schiff's falsehoods, misrepresentations, and abuse of sensitive information. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. LUNA | House | CREC-2023-06-20-pt1-PgH2980-3 | null | 6,453 |
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-1269. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's fourteenth Annual Report to Congress on the Prevention and Reduction of Underage Drinking for 2022, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 290bb-25b(c)(1)(F); Public Law 109-422, Sec. 2; (120 Stat. 2892); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-1270. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation, and Energy Efficiency, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Computer Room Air Conditioners [EERE-2020-BT-STD-0008] (RIN: 1904-AF01) received June 15, 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-1271. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation, and Energy Efficiency, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Manufactured Housing; Extension of Compliance Date [EERE- 2009-BT-BC-0021] (RIN: 1904-AF53) received June 15, 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-1272. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation, and Energy Efficiency, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Air Cooled, Three-Phase, Small Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps With a Cooling Capacity of Less Than 65,000 Btu/h and Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Variable Refrigerant Flow Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps With a Cooling Capacity of Less Than 65,000 Btu/h [EERE-2022-BT-STD-0008] (RIN: 1904-AF32) received June 15, 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-1273. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and Energy Efficiency, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial Warm Air Furnaces [EERE-2019-BT-TP-0041] (RIN: 1904-AE57) received June 15, 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-1274. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and Energy Efficiency, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Portable Air Conditioners [EERE-2020-BT-TP-0029] (RIN: 1904-AF03) received June 15, 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-1275. A letter from the Chair, Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, transmitting the Commission's 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-1276. A letter from the Assistant Legal Adviser, Office of Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report concerning international agreements other than treaties entered into by the United States to be transmitted to the Congress within the sixty-day period specified in the Case- Zablocki Act, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(a); Public Law 92- 403, Sec. 1(a) (as amended by Public Law 108-458, Sec. 7121(b)); (118 Stat. 3807); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-1277. A letter from the Assistant Legal Advisor, Office of Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report concerning international agreements other than treaties entered into by the United States to be transmitted to the Congress within the sixty-day period specified in the Case- Zablocki Act, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(a); Public Law 92- 403, Sec. 1(a) (as amended by Public Law 108-458, Sec. 7121(b)); (118 Stat. 3807); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-1278. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a Memorandum of Justification for the drawdown of defense articles and services and military education and training under section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide immediate military assistance to Ukraine; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-1279. A letter from the Legal Advisor, Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Executive Office of the President, transmitting a notification of a federal vacancy, nomination, and change in previously submitted reported information, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-1280. A letter from the Agency Representative, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Adoption of Updated WIPO Standard ST.26; Revision to Incorporation by Reference [Docket No.: PTO-P-2023-0013] (RIN: 0651-AD69) received June 5, 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-1281. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a letter from the Department; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-1282. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the FY 2022 Report to Congress of the Federal Coordinated Health Care Office, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1315b(e); Public Law 111-148, Sec. 2602(e); (124 Stat. 316); jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. EC-1283. A letter from the Chair, Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, transmitting the Commission's June 2023 Report to the Congress: Medicare and the Health Care Delivery System, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1395b-6(b)(1)(D); Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XVIII, Sec. 1805(b)(1)(D) (as amended by Public Law 111-148, Sec. 2801(b)(2)); (124 Stat. 332); jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-06-20-pt1-PgH2988-2 | null | 6,454 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Ms. FOXX: Committee on Education and the Workforce. H.R. 2813. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from the definition of health insurance coverage certain medical stop-loss insurance obtained by certain plan sponsors of group health plans, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 118-115, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. BURGESS: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 524. Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3564) to cancel recent changes made by the Federal Housing Finance Agency to the up-front loan level pricing adjustments charged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for guarantee of single-family mortgages, and for other purposes; providing the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3799) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for health reimbursement arrangements integrated with individual health insurance coverage; and providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 461) condemning the use of elementary and secondary school facilities to provide shelter for aliens who are not admitted to the United States (Rept. 118-115). Referred to the House Calendar. discharge of committee Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIII, the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means discharged from further consideration. H.R. 2813 referred to the Committee on the Whole House on the state of the Union. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-06-20-pt1-PgH2989 | null | 6,455 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | 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. 2813. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from the definition of health insurance coverage certain medical stop-loss insurance obtained by certain plan sponsors of group health plans, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 118-115, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. BURGESS: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 524. Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3564) to cancel recent changes made by the Federal Housing Finance Agency to the up-front loan level pricing adjustments charged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for guarantee of single-family mortgages, and for other purposes; providing the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3799) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for health reimbursement arrangements integrated with individual health insurance coverage; and providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 461) condemning the use of elementary and secondary school facilities to provide shelter for aliens who are not admitted to the United States (Rept. 118-115). Referred to the House Calendar. discharge of committee Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIII, the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means discharged from further consideration. H.R. 2813 referred to the Committee on the Whole House on the state of the Union. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-06-20-pt1-PgH2989 | null | 6,456 |
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-2023-06-20-pt1-PgH2991 | null | 6,457 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying report; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:To the Congress of the United States: Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to North Korea that was declared in Executive Order 13466 of June 26, 2008, expanded inscope in Executive Order 13551 of August 30, 2010, addressed further in Executive Order 13570 of April 18, 2011, further expanded in scope in Executive Order 13687 of January 2, 2015, and under which additional steps were taken in Executive Order 13722 of March 15, 2016, and Executive Order 13810 of September 20, 2017, is to continue in effect beyond June 26, 2023. The existence and risk of the proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula; the actions and policies of the Government of North Korea that destabilize the Korean Peninsula and imperil United States Armed Forces, allies, and trading partners in the region, including its pursuit of nuclear and missile programs; and other provocative, destabilizing, and repressive actions and policies of the Government of North Korea, continue to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466 with respect to North Korea. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. The White House, June 20, 2023. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-20-pt1-PgS2144-5 | null | 6,458 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges until the end of the Congress: Nell Palumbo, Reagan Philbeck, and John Orantes. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. BLACKBURN | Senate | CREC-2023-06-20-pt1-PgS2149-6 | null | 6,459 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. Votes will be taken in the following order: Ordering the previous question on House Resolution 524; and Adoption of House Resolution 524, if ordered. The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the remaining electronic vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-06-21-pt1-PgH3011-3 | null | 6,460 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 524) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3564) to cancel recent changes made by the Federal Housing Finance Agency to the up-front loan level pricing adjustments charged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for guarantee of single-family mortgages, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3799) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for health reimbursement arrangements integrated with individual health insurance coverage; and providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 461) condemning the use of elementary and secondary school facilities to provide shelter for aliens who are not admitted to the United States, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-06-21-pt1-PgH3011-4 | null | 6,461 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 524) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3564) to cancel recent changes made by the Federal Housing Finance Agency to the up-front loan level pricing adjustments charged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for guarantee of single-family mortgages, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3799) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for health reimbursement arrangements integrated with individual health insurance coverage; and providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 461) condemning the use of elementary and secondary school facilities to provide shelter for aliens who are not admitted to the United States, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-06-21-pt1-PgH3011-4 | null | 6,462 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 524) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3564) to cancel recent changes made by the Federal Housing Finance Agency to the up-front loan level pricing adjustments charged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for guarantee of single-family mortgages, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3799) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for health reimbursement arrangements integrated with individual health insurance coverage; and providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 461) condemning the use of elementary and secondary school facilities to provide shelter for aliens who are not admitted to the United States, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-06-21-pt1-PgH3011-4 | null | 6,463 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or votes objected to under clause 6 of rule XX. The House will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-06-21-pt1-PgH3048-3 | null | 6,464 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 521) censuring Adam Schiff, Representative of the 30th Congressional District of California, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-06-21-pt1-PgH3048 | null | 6,465 |
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 grantedto 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-2023-06-21-pt1-PgH3071-2 | null | 6,466 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. BEYER: H.J. Res. 76. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8 The single subject of this legislation is: Legislating | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-06-21-pt1-PgH3073-19 | null | 6,467 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. COHEN: H.J. Res. 77. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article V The single subject of this legislation is: pardon power | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-06-21-pt1-PgH3073-20 | null | 6,468 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Student Debt I have one more statement in regard to education that I would like to give. Mr. President, every person taking out a loan knows it must be repaid. Still, we have seen lots of talk about canceling student debt after the debt has been assumed. But that doesn't help students who are not in college yet but going to enter college. It is closing the barn door after the horse has been stolen. To lower the cost of college, we need to let students be able to compare the true costs between schools. They can't do that now because, right now, schools that are upfront about their costs, meaning they give the students an exact figure on what they are going to have to pay to get a college degree, these very schools are at a disadvantage to their competition that doesn't play by honest rules and honest policies about what it actually costs to go to a particular school. So I am going to go into some detail about what is wrong with the present environment, and I am going to start with the Government Accountability Office taking a look at the financial aid letters that should show students how much they will pay. Unfortunately, according to the GAO, not a single college followed all 10 best practices that have been suggested by that Agency, the Government Accountability Office. Now, here are some examples: A third of the colleges confused loans and grants--how misleading. You think you are getting a grant, and you find out later it is a loan. And 91 percent of the colleges understate their true costs. So it is quite obvious the free market doesn't work if students only find out how much they owe after they have already selected the college that they will attend. That is why my bill that I entitled Understanding the True Cost of College Act creates a standard, easy-to-read financial aid letter. Under my bill, students could take this letter that they get from the various colleges that they have been accepted to and see, side by side, what each school offers them. They can compare, in other words, apples with apples, not apples with oranges, as is the very case today. Another thing that doesn't make any sense: Do you know that the current practice effectively encourages students to go into debt more than what it actually costs to get a college degree? The paperwork offering student loans tends to default to the maximum eligible loan amount, whether that maximum is needed or not, to get a college degree. So then, under this practice, students have to go out of their way to borrow less money than what is offered. But guess what. Most students actually do borrow the maximum. So, you see, we have a Federal policy that encourages students to take out more debt than they need to get their degree, and we shouldn't have the Federal Government encourage indebtedness that is not needed. The Federal Government, in other words, should help students borrow only what they need. So I have a bill that goes by the title of Know Before You Owe Act. This act would show students their estimated monthly loan payments after graduating. They would see it compared to the average salary for graduates of their particular college major. It would also require students to type in the amount that they want to borrow, instead of clicking a box that ends up with them taking the maximum that is allowed. Each of these proposals puts students, then, in the driver's seat, where the student should be. Choosing a college happens to be one of the largest purchases many Americans ever make. It should be a good investment for a bright future, not a one-way ticket to excessive debt. Students should have all the information they need when they are making that decision of what college or university to attend. All the ideas I mentioned here are bipartisan, and I have been advocating some of these issues for years. It is not a Republican or Democrat idea to give students the information they need to make the right decision for which school to attend. That is why I was glad to see each of these two ideas that I am talking about now included in legislation called the Lowering Education Costs and Debt Act. My colleagues in the Senate are right to focus on the start of the process, when students choose a college and take out a loan. Dealing with debt only after it is taken out does not lower the cost of a college education. Right now, a student can't pick a college on price even if they wanted to. I hope this is the start of a discussion to help students limit their borrowing on the front end and, ultimately, to put pressure on institutions to bring down the cost of college. Whereas President Biden's proposal to wipe out student debt would give colleges a license to pump up tuition costs, these proposals would pump the brakes on soaring tuition costs by empowering students to make smart decisions on the front end. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-21-pt1-PgS2171 | null | 6,469 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Student Debt I have one more statement in regard to education that I would like to give. Mr. President, every person taking out a loan knows it must be repaid. Still, we have seen lots of talk about canceling student debt after the debt has been assumed. But that doesn't help students who are not in college yet but going to enter college. It is closing the barn door after the horse has been stolen. To lower the cost of college, we need to let students be able to compare the true costs between schools. They can't do that now because, right now, schools that are upfront about their costs, meaning they give the students an exact figure on what they are going to have to pay to get a college degree, these very schools are at a disadvantage to their competition that doesn't play by honest rules and honest policies about what it actually costs to go to a particular school. So I am going to go into some detail about what is wrong with the present environment, and I am going to start with the Government Accountability Office taking a look at the financial aid letters that should show students how much they will pay. Unfortunately, according to the GAO, not a single college followed all 10 best practices that have been suggested by that Agency, the Government Accountability Office. Now, here are some examples: A third of the colleges confused loans and grants--how misleading. You think you are getting a grant, and you find out later it is a loan. And 91 percent of the colleges understate their true costs. So it is quite obvious the free market doesn't work if students only find out how much they owe after they have already selected the college that they will attend. That is why my bill that I entitled Understanding the True Cost of College Act creates a standard, easy-to-read financial aid letter. Under my bill, students could take this letter that they get from the various colleges that they have been accepted to and see, side by side, what each school offers them. They can compare, in other words, apples with apples, not apples with oranges, as is the very case today. Another thing that doesn't make any sense: Do you know that the current practice effectively encourages students to go into debt more than what it actually costs to get a college degree? The paperwork offering student loans tends to default to the maximum eligible loan amount, whether that maximum is needed or not, to get a college degree. So then, under this practice, students have to go out of their way to borrow less money than what is offered. But guess what. Most students actually do borrow the maximum. So, you see, we have a Federal policy that encourages students to take out more debt than they need to get their degree, and we shouldn't have the Federal Government encourage indebtedness that is not needed. The Federal Government, in other words, should help students borrow only what they need. So I have a bill that goes by the title of Know Before You Owe Act. This act would show students their estimated monthly loan payments after graduating. They would see it compared to the average salary for graduates of their particular college major. It would also require students to type in the amount that they want to borrow, instead of clicking a box that ends up with them taking the maximum that is allowed. Each of these proposals puts students, then, in the driver's seat, where the student should be. Choosing a college happens to be one of the largest purchases many Americans ever make. It should be a good investment for a bright future, not a one-way ticket to excessive debt. Students should have all the information they need when they are making that decision of what college or university to attend. All the ideas I mentioned here are bipartisan, and I have been advocating some of these issues for years. It is not a Republican or Democrat idea to give students the information they need to make the right decision for which school to attend. That is why I was glad to see each of these two ideas that I am talking about now included in legislation called the Lowering Education Costs and Debt Act. My colleagues in the Senate are right to focus on the start of the process, when students choose a college and take out a loan. Dealing with debt only after it is taken out does not lower the cost of a college education. Right now, a student can't pick a college on price even if they wanted to. I hope this is the start of a discussion to help students limit their borrowing on the front end and, ultimately, to put pressure on institutions to bring down the cost of college. Whereas President Biden's proposal to wipe out student debt would give colleges a license to pump up tuition costs, these proposals would pump the brakes on soaring tuition costs by empowering students to make smart decisions on the front end. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-21-pt1-PgS2171 | null | 6,470 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I rise today in recognition of the distinct history of Wyoming's Platte County Courthouse. The courthouse reopens this summer following its first significant renovation in over a century. For 105 years, the residents of Platte County have recognized the courthouse as an important landmark and testament to the county's history. Located in the county seat of Wheatland, WY, the roots of this historic courthouse are tied to the wild frontier. After the county's incorporation in 1911, the Platte County Board of Commissioners agreed to lease office space in the Stock Growers Bank for $55 per month. Five years later, the commission recognized the need for a permanent structure to house both the court and jail. Eager to start, commissioners issued $50,000 in county bonds to finance construction, subject to voter approval. Residents were passionate about the campaign for a new courthouse and jail. There were well-reasoned arguments on both sides. On November 7, 1916, the will of the people won: Platte County would build a new courthouse and jail. Construction progressed quickly. Commissioners contracted with architectural firm Baerreson Brothers, based in Denver and Cheyenne, for initial design plans. By April 6, 1917, the county approved Archie Allison's bid for general construction. State Grand Master of the Masonic Lodge, Herbert King of Laramie, dedicated the building's cornerstone on June 20, 1917. In January 1918, the county completed work on the courthouse and jail. The total cost, including furnishings, was $85,000. Since then, generations of dedicated civil servants have preserved and enhanced the building. The National Park Service recognized the rich historical value of the courthouse on October 15, 2008, when the building was listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Today, the courthouse acts as an archive for the history of Platte County. It provides a sense of community for its citizens and is an important gathering place for public activities. Remarkably, in its 105-year history, the Platte County Courthouse has undergone only small renovations to adapt to changing technology and workplace standards. That changed in 2018, when voters authorized the county to collect $4.7 million in Specific Purpose Excise Tax--more commonly known as a sixth-penny sales tax. This, plus other reserve funds and grants, allowed the county to complete $6.5 million in extensive renovations. For the past 18 months, county officials have been temporarily displaced while the building underwent massive changes. In addition to a brandnew HVAC and electric system, the renovation includes added insulation, new plumbing, and a new elevator. The county implemented all of these designs with an intent to increase efficiency and accessibility. On July 1, 2023, residents of Platte County will gather to celebrate this impressive achievement. Officials will host a county-wide celebration. They plan to commemorate the history of the county and the generosity and commitment of its citizens. Platte County is led by these dedicated individuals: Steve Shockley, Commissioner Kayla Mantle, Commissioner Ian Jolovich, Commissioner Malcolm Ervin, Clerk Kristi Rietz, Treasurer David Russell, Sheriff Doug Weaver, Attorney Phil Martin, Coroner Danette Eppel, Assessor Hal Hutchinson, Engineer Terry Stevenson, Emergency Management Jim DeWitt, Maintenance Supervisor Doug Dumont, Planning Director Penny Simonton, Public Health Beal Angle, Road and Bridge Mona McAuley, Clerk of the Court Honorable Edward Buchanan, 8th Judicial District Court Judge Honorable F. Scott Peasley, 8th Judicial District Court Judge Honorable Nathaniel Hibben, 8th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Honorable Clark Allan, 8th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Magistrate Scott Cole, 8th Judicial District It is an honor to rise in recognition of this significant milestone for Platte County. Bobbi joins me in extending our congratulations to the citizens of Platte County on the lasting legacy of their newly renovated courthouse. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BARRASSO | Senate | CREC-2023-06-21-pt1-PgS2181 | null | 6,471 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. HEINRICH. Madam President, across more than five decades in public service, Governor Joe A. Garcia of Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo was a leader among leaders, for his community and all of Indian Country. He was also a dear friend and close mentor. In so many ways, New Mexico will not be the same without him. Governor Garcia was a three-time Governor of Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo, where he oversaw the Self Governance Initiative, under which the Pueblo now runs all of its Bureau of Indian Affairs programs. He was serving as the Pueblo's Head Councilman at the time of his death. Governor Garcia served for two terms as the president of the National Congress of American Indians, the oldest and largest American Indian and Alaska Native organization serving sovereign Tribal Nations. He also served as the vice president of the Board of Trustees of the Santa Fe Indian School and as the chairman of the All Indian Pueblo Council--now named the All Pueblo Council of Governors--which represents 20 Pueblos located in New Mexico and Texas. In addition, Governor Garcia was a member of the Tribal Leaders Task Force, where he served as cochair for 3 years for the Federal Communications Commission. He was also a cochair of the Tribal Technical Advisory Committee for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration--SAMHSA--and cochair of the Tribal Transportation Self Governance Program Negotiated Rulemaking Team. As a young man, Governor Garcia served in the U.S. Air Force. After his military service, he earned a bachelor of science in electrical engineering from the University of New Mexico. Governor Garcia worked on the technical staff at Los Alamos National Laboratory for 25 years, working on electronics design and development for data acquisition systems. He also taught courses in computers, electronics, lasers, and math at the Northern New Mexico College from 1979 to 1983. Governor Garcia fought to advance the mission of Tribal sovereignty over education through his leadership at the Santa Fe Indian School--SFIS. The SFIS became the first former Federal Indian boarding school where a Tribal organization--the All Indian Pueblo Council--contracted for the education of their children. Since the signing of the Santa Fe Indian School Act in 2000, the Pueblo Governors have held the school's land in trust and established an educational program based on the right and responsibility to educate New Mexico Indian children in a way that supports their cultural and traditional belief system. Governor Garcia championed both increased funding and support for SFIS and the establishment of Tribally controlled educational systems across Indian Country. On a personal note, I was fortunate to be among the many who learned from Governor Garcia--his wise counsel and advice and the example he setfor all of us to follow. I will never forget sitting down with him years ago when he first encouraged me to run for the U.S. Senate to represent our great State. My thoughts are with his wife, Oneva, his daughters Melissa and MorningStar, his six grandchildren, two great-grandchildren, and all those in Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico, and Indian Country who knew and loved him. The legacy that Governor Garcia built over decades of steadfast advocacy for Tribal sovereignty, educational sovereignty, and the cultural preservation of Pueblo communities will be felt for generations to come. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. HEINRICH | Senate | CREC-2023-06-21-pt1-PgS2182-3 | null | 6,472 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. HEINRICH. Madam President, across more than five decades in public service, Governor Joe A. Garcia of Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo was a leader among leaders, for his community and all of Indian Country. He was also a dear friend and close mentor. In so many ways, New Mexico will not be the same without him. Governor Garcia was a three-time Governor of Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo, where he oversaw the Self Governance Initiative, under which the Pueblo now runs all of its Bureau of Indian Affairs programs. He was serving as the Pueblo's Head Councilman at the time of his death. Governor Garcia served for two terms as the president of the National Congress of American Indians, the oldest and largest American Indian and Alaska Native organization serving sovereign Tribal Nations. He also served as the vice president of the Board of Trustees of the Santa Fe Indian School and as the chairman of the All Indian Pueblo Council--now named the All Pueblo Council of Governors--which represents 20 Pueblos located in New Mexico and Texas. In addition, Governor Garcia was a member of the Tribal Leaders Task Force, where he served as cochair for 3 years for the Federal Communications Commission. He was also a cochair of the Tribal Technical Advisory Committee for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration--SAMHSA--and cochair of the Tribal Transportation Self Governance Program Negotiated Rulemaking Team. As a young man, Governor Garcia served in the U.S. Air Force. After his military service, he earned a bachelor of science in electrical engineering from the University of New Mexico. Governor Garcia worked on the technical staff at Los Alamos National Laboratory for 25 years, working on electronics design and development for data acquisition systems. He also taught courses in computers, electronics, lasers, and math at the Northern New Mexico College from 1979 to 1983. Governor Garcia fought to advance the mission of Tribal sovereignty over education through his leadership at the Santa Fe Indian School--SFIS. The SFIS became the first former Federal Indian boarding school where a Tribal organization--the All Indian Pueblo Council--contracted for the education of their children. Since the signing of the Santa Fe Indian School Act in 2000, the Pueblo Governors have held the school's land in trust and established an educational program based on the right and responsibility to educate New Mexico Indian children in a way that supports their cultural and traditional belief system. Governor Garcia championed both increased funding and support for SFIS and the establishment of Tribally controlled educational systems across Indian Country. On a personal note, I was fortunate to be among the many who learned from Governor Garcia--his wise counsel and advice and the example he setfor all of us to follow. I will never forget sitting down with him years ago when he first encouraged me to run for the U.S. Senate to represent our great State. My thoughts are with his wife, Oneva, his daughters Melissa and MorningStar, his six grandchildren, two great-grandchildren, and all those in Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico, and Indian Country who knew and loved him. The legacy that Governor Garcia built over decades of steadfast advocacy for Tribal sovereignty, educational sovereignty, and the cultural preservation of Pueblo communities will be felt for generations to come. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. HEINRICH | Senate | CREC-2023-06-21-pt1-PgS2182-3 | null | 6,473 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. WARNOCK. Madam President, today I have the honor and privilege to recognize Dr. Rochelle Walensky for her unwavering dedication, service, and contributions to public health. Before her time at the CDC, Dr. Walensky's groundbreaking work in understanding the transmission, prevention, and treatment of HIV/AIDS was paramount in addressing disparities in access to care, vaccine efficacy, and distribution among underserved communities while addressing gaps in knowledge, earning her widespread recognition and acclaim. With a drive toward making a difference, Dr. Walensky began her tenure as Director of the CDC in 2021, in the midst of the unprecedented global COVID-19 pandemic. Despite this challenge, Dr. Walensky boldly stepped into the role, bringing her years of experience and perspective to the Georgia-based Agency. As evidenced by the CORE Health Equity Science and Intervention Strategy, which she unveiled within months of starting, and declaration that racism is a serious public health crisis, Dr. Walensky's passion for health equity has ensured that equity is baked into the CDC's mission. Dr. Walensky's pursuit of truth and dedication to the well-being of others has left an indelible mark on the field of public health. Her leadership during the most challenging public health crisis of this generation saved lives. She has displayed true servant leadership by prioritizing science, empathy, and public welfare during heightened times of distrust and misinformation. As we reflect on Dr. Walensky's remarkable achievements before she begins the next chapter in her career, I am proud to honor her as a pioneer for health equity. Her commitment to public health and pursuit of the idea that we all have inherent value, combined with her tireless efforts to protect and improve the lives of all individuals, will forever inspire future generations of healthcare professionals. Thank you, Dr. Walensky, for your great service to the American people. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WARNOCK | Senate | CREC-2023-06-21-pt1-PgS2182 | null | 6,474 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. WARNOCK. Madam President, today I have the honor and privilege to recognize Dr. Rochelle Walensky for her unwavering dedication, service, and contributions to public health. Before her time at the CDC, Dr. Walensky's groundbreaking work in understanding the transmission, prevention, and treatment of HIV/AIDS was paramount in addressing disparities in access to care, vaccine efficacy, and distribution among underserved communities while addressing gaps in knowledge, earning her widespread recognition and acclaim. With a drive toward making a difference, Dr. Walensky began her tenure as Director of the CDC in 2021, in the midst of the unprecedented global COVID-19 pandemic. Despite this challenge, Dr. Walensky boldly stepped into the role, bringing her years of experience and perspective to the Georgia-based Agency. As evidenced by the CORE Health Equity Science and Intervention Strategy, which she unveiled within months of starting, and declaration that racism is a serious public health crisis, Dr. Walensky's passion for health equity has ensured that equity is baked into the CDC's mission. Dr. Walensky's pursuit of truth and dedication to the well-being of others has left an indelible mark on the field of public health. Her leadership during the most challenging public health crisis of this generation saved lives. She has displayed true servant leadership by prioritizing science, empathy, and public welfare during heightened times of distrust and misinformation. As we reflect on Dr. Walensky's remarkable achievements before she begins the next chapter in her career, I am proud to honor her as a pioneer for health equity. Her commitment to public health and pursuit of the idea that we all have inherent value, combined with her tireless efforts to protect and improve the lives of all individuals, will forever inspire future generations of healthcare professionals. Thank you, Dr. Walensky, for your great service to the American people. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WARNOCK | Senate | CREC-2023-06-21-pt1-PgS2182 | null | 6,475 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Welch, and Mr. Coons) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 260 Whereas Tunisia gained its independence from France on March 20, 1956, with Habib Bourguiba serving as Prime Minister, before becoming Tunisia's first President in 1957; Whereas President Bourguiba led Tunisia through independence and the ensuing 30 years, a period that included vast social reforms and restrictions on civil society and democratic participation; Whereas, in 1987, Prime Minister Zine El Abdine Ben Ali deposed President Bourguiba and named himself President of Tunisia, citing Bourguiba's incompetence and failing health to justify his undemocratic actions; Whereas President Ben Ali was subsequently elected in 1989 and 1994 without genuine opposition, and was re-elected in 1999, 2004, and 2009 by implausibly high vote margins in election processes that were widely deemed as neither free nor fair; Whereas President Ben Ali's rule was marred by gross human rights violations and a lack of democratic freedoms; Whereas, the 2003 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, released by the Department of State on February 25, 2004, stated, referring to Tunisia-- (1) ``Elections are regularly characterized by notable irregularities, including voter intimidation, and there is no secret ballot.''; (2) ``Security forces physically abused, intimidated, and harassed citizens who voiced public criticism of the Government.''; (3) ``The Government continued to impose significant restrictions on freedom of speech and the press.''; and (4) ``The Government remained intolerant of public criticism and used physical abuse, criminal investigations, the court system, arbitrary arrests, residential restrictions, and travel controls (including denial of passports) to discourage criticism by human rights and opposition activists.''; Whereas, on December 17, 2010, 26-year-old fruit and vegetable street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi lit himself on fire in desperate protest in Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia, an act that was largely seen as the beginning of the Arab Spring movement that spread throughout the region; Whereas ensuing popular protests in Tunisia in response to corruption, repression, and economic failure-- (1) forced the resignation of President Ben Ali from the office of president; (2) ended his 23-year rule; and (3) further inspired similar pent up democratic demands throughout the Arab world; Whereas Tunisia emerged from the Arab Spring as one of the most hopeful and promising reformed democracies in the region, including with an interim government and a Constituent Assembly responsible for drafting a new constitution and fostering political compromise for a future democratic government; Whereas, in February 2011, Senator John McCain urged United States support for Tunisia's democratic transition, noting ``The revolution in Tunisia has been very successful and it has become a model for the region.''; Whereas, in March 2011, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon pledged full support for Tunisia's transition to democracy, hailing the country's revolution as the spark that lit ``the profound and dramatic changes'' sweeping the Arab world; Whereas, on January 26, 2014, the Constituent Assembly of Tunisia adopted a new constitution demonstrating consensus for building a democracy founded on freedom and equality; Whereas the new constitution of Tunisia includes Articles that-- (1) give equal rights to men and women; (2) protection freedoms of assembly, peaceful demonstration, expression, and publication; and (3) outline an electoral system and representation for the Tunisian people with checks and balances; Whereas, in November 2014, Tunisia held its first genuinely free and fair presidential election since its independence in 1956, with 27 candidates freely competing for the office of president; Whereas longtime politician Beji Caid Essebsi won the election in a runoff with 55 percent of the vote, becoming Tunisia's first legitimately elected president since independence; Whereas President Essebsi faced many difficult challenges, including economic turmoil, terrorist attacks, and public expectations for change; Whereas public disillusionment with the country's political elites increased amid continued corruption and devastating acts of terrorism that severely hurt the tourism industry and larger economy; Whereas political outsider and constitutional law professor Kais Saied won the presidential election held on October 13, 2019, and was sworn into office 10 days later in a peaceful transfer of power; Whereas, by 2021, protests in response to worsening economic conditions, further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, occurred across cities in Tunisia, to which the police responded violently; Whereas, in July 2021, President Saied capitalized on unrest to unilaterally seize power by-- (1) dismissing Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi; (2) suspending Parliament for 30 days; and (3) assuming full executive authority without first consulting the government; Whereas in late 2021, President Saied indefinitely suspended Parliament and transferred all legislative powers to himself; Whereas, in early 2022, President Saied continued to undermine Tunisia's democratic institutions, including by taking control of the Independent High Authority for Elections and dissolving the High Judicial Council; Whereas, in July 2022, President Saied unilaterally put to a referendum a new draft constitution, which-- (1) consolidated power to the presidency; (2) limited parliamentary authority; and (3) diminished judicial independence; Whereas the new draft constitution was approved despite remarkably low voter turnout and heavy domestic and international criticism surrounding the lack of genuine debate throughout the drafting process; Whereas, between 2021 to 2023, Tunisia experienced-- (1) a dramatic drop in voter participation and public confidence in the political process; and (2) an escalation in politically motivated arrests of political opponents, judges, lawyers, journalists, and business leaders; and Whereas President Saied's actions have dramatically undermined and threatened Tunisia's nascent democratic institutions: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes Tunisia as the symbolic birthplace of the historic Arab Spring movement and the country's notable democratic reforms that emerged during the Arab Spring period; (2) commends the Tunisian people for their courage and democratic achievements made in the immediate years following the Arab Spring; (3) expresses deep concern for more recent reversals of such democratic gains, including-- (A) the erosion of judicial independence; (B) political repression and arrests; and (C) the undemocratic consolidation of power; (4) urges the Government of Tunisia-- (A) to release all political prisoners; and (B) to respect the rights of the people to free exercise of peaceful assembly, expression, and the press; and (5) calls on the Government of Tunisia to support a transparent and open 2024 presidential election process. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-21-pt1-PgS2189-2 | null | 6,476 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Welch, and Mr. Coons) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 260 Whereas Tunisia gained its independence from France on March 20, 1956, with Habib Bourguiba serving as Prime Minister, before becoming Tunisia's first President in 1957; Whereas President Bourguiba led Tunisia through independence and the ensuing 30 years, a period that included vast social reforms and restrictions on civil society and democratic participation; Whereas, in 1987, Prime Minister Zine El Abdine Ben Ali deposed President Bourguiba and named himself President of Tunisia, citing Bourguiba's incompetence and failing health to justify his undemocratic actions; Whereas President Ben Ali was subsequently elected in 1989 and 1994 without genuine opposition, and was re-elected in 1999, 2004, and 2009 by implausibly high vote margins in election processes that were widely deemed as neither free nor fair; Whereas President Ben Ali's rule was marred by gross human rights violations and a lack of democratic freedoms; Whereas, the 2003 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, released by the Department of State on February 25, 2004, stated, referring to Tunisia-- (1) ``Elections are regularly characterized by notable irregularities, including voter intimidation, and there is no secret ballot.''; (2) ``Security forces physically abused, intimidated, and harassed citizens who voiced public criticism of the Government.''; (3) ``The Government continued to impose significant restrictions on freedom of speech and the press.''; and (4) ``The Government remained intolerant of public criticism and used physical abuse, criminal investigations, the court system, arbitrary arrests, residential restrictions, and travel controls (including denial of passports) to discourage criticism by human rights and opposition activists.''; Whereas, on December 17, 2010, 26-year-old fruit and vegetable street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi lit himself on fire in desperate protest in Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia, an act that was largely seen as the beginning of the Arab Spring movement that spread throughout the region; Whereas ensuing popular protests in Tunisia in response to corruption, repression, and economic failure-- (1) forced the resignation of President Ben Ali from the office of president; (2) ended his 23-year rule; and (3) further inspired similar pent up democratic demands throughout the Arab world; Whereas Tunisia emerged from the Arab Spring as one of the most hopeful and promising reformed democracies in the region, including with an interim government and a Constituent Assembly responsible for drafting a new constitution and fostering political compromise for a future democratic government; Whereas, in February 2011, Senator John McCain urged United States support for Tunisia's democratic transition, noting ``The revolution in Tunisia has been very successful and it has become a model for the region.''; Whereas, in March 2011, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon pledged full support for Tunisia's transition to democracy, hailing the country's revolution as the spark that lit ``the profound and dramatic changes'' sweeping the Arab world; Whereas, on January 26, 2014, the Constituent Assembly of Tunisia adopted a new constitution demonstrating consensus for building a democracy founded on freedom and equality; Whereas the new constitution of Tunisia includes Articles that-- (1) give equal rights to men and women; (2) protection freedoms of assembly, peaceful demonstration, expression, and publication; and (3) outline an electoral system and representation for the Tunisian people with checks and balances; Whereas, in November 2014, Tunisia held its first genuinely free and fair presidential election since its independence in 1956, with 27 candidates freely competing for the office of president; Whereas longtime politician Beji Caid Essebsi won the election in a runoff with 55 percent of the vote, becoming Tunisia's first legitimately elected president since independence; Whereas President Essebsi faced many difficult challenges, including economic turmoil, terrorist attacks, and public expectations for change; Whereas public disillusionment with the country's political elites increased amid continued corruption and devastating acts of terrorism that severely hurt the tourism industry and larger economy; Whereas political outsider and constitutional law professor Kais Saied won the presidential election held on October 13, 2019, and was sworn into office 10 days later in a peaceful transfer of power; Whereas, by 2021, protests in response to worsening economic conditions, further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, occurred across cities in Tunisia, to which the police responded violently; Whereas, in July 2021, President Saied capitalized on unrest to unilaterally seize power by-- (1) dismissing Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi; (2) suspending Parliament for 30 days; and (3) assuming full executive authority without first consulting the government; Whereas in late 2021, President Saied indefinitely suspended Parliament and transferred all legislative powers to himself; Whereas, in early 2022, President Saied continued to undermine Tunisia's democratic institutions, including by taking control of the Independent High Authority for Elections and dissolving the High Judicial Council; Whereas, in July 2022, President Saied unilaterally put to a referendum a new draft constitution, which-- (1) consolidated power to the presidency; (2) limited parliamentary authority; and (3) diminished judicial independence; Whereas the new draft constitution was approved despite remarkably low voter turnout and heavy domestic and international criticism surrounding the lack of genuine debate throughout the drafting process; Whereas, between 2021 to 2023, Tunisia experienced-- (1) a dramatic drop in voter participation and public confidence in the political process; and (2) an escalation in politically motivated arrests of political opponents, judges, lawyers, journalists, and business leaders; and Whereas President Saied's actions have dramatically undermined and threatened Tunisia's nascent democratic institutions: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes Tunisia as the symbolic birthplace of the historic Arab Spring movement and the country's notable democratic reforms that emerged during the Arab Spring period; (2) commends the Tunisian people for their courage and democratic achievements made in the immediate years following the Arab Spring; (3) expresses deep concern for more recent reversals of such democratic gains, including-- (A) the erosion of judicial independence; (B) political repression and arrests; and (C) the undemocratic consolidation of power; (4) urges the Government of Tunisia-- (A) to release all political prisoners; and (B) to respect the rights of the people to free exercise of peaceful assembly, expression, and the press; and (5) calls on the Government of Tunisia to support a transparent and open 2024 presidential election process. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-21-pt1-PgS2189-2 | null | 6,477 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Ms. CORTEZ MASTO (for herself and Ms. Rosen) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 261 Whereas, on June 13, 2023, the Vegas Golden Knights won the 2023 National Hockey League (referred to in this preamble as the ``NHL'') Stanley Cup Final; Whereas the 2023 Stanley Cup Final is the first Stanley Cup Final won by the Vegas Golden Knights in the 6 years in which the franchise has competed in the NHL; Whereas, on their way to winning the 2023 Stanley Cup Final, the Vegas Golden Knights defeated-- (1) the Winnipeg Jets in the first round of the playoffs; (2) the Edmonton Oilers in the second round of the playoffs; (3) the Dallas Stars in the Western Conference Finals to win the Clarence S. Campbell Bowl; and (4) the Florida Panthers in the Stanley Cup Final; Whereas, during the 2022-2023 NHL Season, the Vegas Golden Knights-- (1) won a franchise record 51 games during the regular season and set a new team record with 111 points scored to clinch their third Pacific Division Championship; and (2) had Head Coach Bruce Cassidy and 2 All-Stars, Logan Thompson and Chandler Stephenson, represent the franchise at the 2023 NHL All-Star Game in Sunrise, Florida; Whereas, during the 2023 Stanley Cup Playoffs-- (1) Adin Hill of the Vegas Golden Knights set a NHL Playoff record by achieving 11 wins in a single postseason after making his debut in the second round; and (2) Jonathan Marchessault of the Vegas Golden Knights won the 2023 Conn Smythe Trophy, which is awarded to the most valuable player in the Stanley Cup Playoffs; Whereas the entire Vegas Golden Knights roster contributed to the 2023 Stanley Cup victory: Mark Stone, Alex Pietrangelo, Reilly Smith, Adin Hill, Michael Amadio, Ivan Barbashev, Teddy Blueger, William Carrier, Paul Cotter, Jack Eichel, Brett Howden, William Karlsson, Phil Kessel, Keegan Kolesar, Jonathan Marchessault, Nicolas Roy, Chandler Stephenson, Nicolas Hague, Ben Hutton, Alec Martinez, Brayden McNabb, Brayden Pachal, Shea Theadore, Zach Whitecloud, Laurent Brossoit, Jire Patera, Jonathan Quick, and Logan Thompson; Whereas behind the Vegas Golden Knights roster is a team of coaches and support staff committed to enriching the Las Vegas community on and off the ice; Whereas the Vegas Golden Knights deserve special recognition for their continued work to provide hope and unity to a grieving Las Vegas community since their inaugural season in 2017-2018, following the Route 91 tragedy that occurred on October 1, 2017; and Whereas the Vegas Golden Knights represent their loyal fans, the Las Vegas community, and the entire State of Nevada with a commitment to excellence: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) congratulates the Vegas Golden Knights and its loyal fan base for becoming the 2023 National Hockey League Stanley Cup champions; and (2) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to members of the Vegas Golden Knights' ownership, management, and coaching staff, namely-- (A) the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and Governor of the Vegas Golden Knights, Bill Foley; (B) General Manager Kelly McCrimmon; and (C) Head Coach Bruce Cassidy. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-21-pt1-PgS2190 | null | 6,478 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. SULLIVAN (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Tuberville, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Braun, Mr. Rubio, Mrs. Blackburn, and Mr. Cassidy) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 264 Whereas the brave men and women of the Armed Forces, who proudly serve the United States-- (1) risk their lives to protect the freedom, health, and welfare of the people of the United States; and (2) deserve the investment of every possible resource to ensure their lasting physical, mental, and emotional well- being; Whereas, since the events of September 11, 2001, nearly 2,800,000 members of the Armed Forces have deployed overseas and served in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq; Whereas the current generation of men and women in the Armed Forces has sustained a high rate of operational deployments, with many members of the Armed Forces serving overseas multiple times, placing those members at high risk of enduring traumatic combat stress; Whereas, when left untreated, exposure to traumatic combat stress can lead to severe and chronic post-traumatic stress responses, which are commonly referred to as post-traumatic stress disorder or post-traumatic stress injury; Whereas many men and women of the Armed Forces and veterans who served before September 11, 2001, live with mental health needs from post-traumatic stress and remain at risk for responses to that stress; Whereas many post-traumatic stress responses remain unreported, undiagnosed, and untreated due to a lack of awareness about post-traumatic stress and the persistent stigma associated with mental health conditions; Whereas post-traumatic stress significantly increases the risk of post-traumatic stress responses, including anxiety, depression, homelessness, substance abuse, and suicide, especially if left untreated; Whereas the Secretary of Veterans Affairs reports that-- (1) approximately 20 percent of veterans who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom have post-traumatic stress in a given year; (2) approximately 12 percent of veterans who served in the Persian Gulf War have post-traumatic stress in a given year; and (3) approximately 30 percent of veterans who served in the Vietnam era have had post-traumatic stress in their lifetimes; Whereas public perceptions of post-traumatic stress as a mental health disorder create unique challenges for veterans seeking employment; Whereas the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, veterans service organizations, and the private and public medical community have made significant advances in the identification, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of post-traumatic stress and the symptoms of post- traumatic stress, but many challenges remain; Whereas increased understanding of post-traumatic stress can help eliminate stigma attached to the mental health issues of post-traumatic stress; Whereas additional efforts are needed to find further ways to eliminate the stigma associated with post-traumatic stress, including-- (1) an examination of how post-traumatic stress is discussed in the United States; and (2) a recognition that post-traumatic stress is a common injury that is treatable; Whereas timely and appropriate treatment of post-traumatic stress responses can diminish complications and avert suicides; Whereas post-traumatic stress-- (1) can result from any number of stressors other than combat, including rape, sexual assault, battery, torture, confinement, child abuse, car accidents, train wrecks, plane crashes, bombings, natural disasters, or global pandemics; and (2) affects approximately 8,000,000 adults in the United States annually; Whereas traumatic events such as the COVID-19 pandemic could-- (1) increase the number of individuals impacted by post- traumatic stress; or (2) exacerbate the responses of post-traumatic stress; Whereas the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder was first defined by the American Psychiatric Association in 1980 to commonly and more accurately understand and treat survivors of physical and psychological trauma, including veterans who had endured severe traumatic combat stress; Whereas the word ``disorder'' can perpetuate the stigma associated with combat stress, so the more general term ``post-traumatic stress'' is often preferred; and Whereas the designation of a National Post-Traumatic Stress Awareness Month and a National Post-Traumatic Stress Awareness Day raises public awareness about issues relating to post-traumatic stress, reduces the stigma associated with post-traumatic stress, and helps ensure that individuals suffering from the invisible wounds of war receive proper treatment: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates-- (A) June 2023 as ``National Post-Traumatic Stress Awareness Month''; and (B) June 27, 2023, as ``National Post-Traumatic Stress Awareness Day''; (2) supports the efforts of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of Defense, and the entire medical community to educate members of the Armed Forces, veterans, the families of members of the Armed Forces and veterans, and the public about the causes, symptoms, and treatment of post- traumatic stress; (3) supports efforts by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Defense to foster-- (A) cultural change around the issue of post-traumatic stress; and (B) understanding that personal interactions can save lives and advance treatment; (4) welcomes the efforts of local Vet Centers (as defined in section 1712A(h) of title 38, United States Code) to provide assistance to veterans who are suffering from the effects of post-traumatic stress; (5) encourages the leadership of the Armed Forces to support appropriate treatment of men and women of the Armed Forces who suffer from post-traumatic stress; (6) recognizes the impact of post-traumatic stress on the spouses and families of members of the Armed Forces and veterans; and (7) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate transmit a copy of this resolution to-- (A) the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; and (B) the Secretary of Defense. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-21-pt1-PgS2191 | null | 6,479 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. Votes will be taken in the following order: Ordering the previous question on House Resolution 529; Adoption of House Resolution 529, if ordered; and Adoption of H. Res. 461. The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-06-22-pt1-PgH3092-3 | null | 6,480 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 529) relating to consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 503), impeaching Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States, for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-06-22-pt1-PgH3092-4 | null | 6,481 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the resolution (H. Res. 461) condemning the use of elementary and secondary school facilities to provide shelter for aliens who are not admitted to the United States, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-06-22-pt1-PgH3094 | null | 6,482 |
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-1302. A letter from the Alternate OSD FRLO, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's interim rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Prohibition on Certain Procurements From the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (DFARS Case 2023-D015) [Docket: DARS-2023- 0022] (RIN: 0750-AL88) received June 20, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-1303. A letter from the President and Chair, Board of Directors, Export-Import Bank, transmitting the Annual Report to Congress on the operations of the Export-Import Bank of the United States for Fiscal Year 2022, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 635g(a); July 31, 1945, ch. 341, Sec. 8(a) (as amended by Public Law 93-646, Sec. 10); (88 Stat. 2336); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-1304. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Commerce, transmitting a report certifying that the export of the listed item to the People's Republic of China is not detrimental to the U.S. space launch industry, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2778 note; Public Law 105-261, Sec. 1512 (as amended by Public Law 105-277, Sec. 146); (112 Stat. 2174); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-1305. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Commerce, transmitting a report certifying that the export of the listed items to the People's Republic of China is not detrimental to the U.S. space launch industry, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2778 note; Public Law 105-261, Sec. 1512 (as amended by Public Law 105-277, Sec. 146); (112 Stat. 2174); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-1306. A letter from the Chair, Appraisal Subcommittee, Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, transmitting the Council's 2022 Annual Report, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 3332(a)(5); Public Law 101-73, Sec. 1103 (as amended by Public Law 111-203, Sec. 1473(b)); (124 Stat. 2190); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-1307. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: RSAT case 23-9410, a certification of a proposed transfer of defense articles and defense services; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-1308. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report concerning Notification of Exports to Syria pursuant to Section 40(g)(2) of the Arms export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-1309. A letter from the Director, Congressional Affairs, Federal Election Commission, transmitting the Commission's Inspector General's Semiannual Report to Congress, covering the period from October 1, 2022, through March 31, 2023; to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-1310. A letter from the President and Chief Executive Officer, Federal Home Loan Bank of Cincinnati, transmitting the 2022 management report and financial statements of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Cincinnati; to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-1311. A letter from the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Federal Home Loan Bank of New York, transmitting the 2022 management report and financial statements of the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York; to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-1312. A letter from the Director, U.S. Office of Government Ethics, transmitting the Office's final rule -- Executive Branch Financial Disclosure and Standards of Ethical Conduct Regulations (RIN: 3209-AA68) received June 20, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-1313. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's FY 2023 Payments in Lieu of Taxes program report; to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-1314. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a report entitled, ``Department of Homeland Security Operation Allies Welcome Afghan Parolee and Benefits'', pursuant to Public Law 117-43, Sec. 2503(a); (135 Stat. 378); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-1315. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting the National Institute of Justice Annual Report 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-06-22-pt1-PgH3106-2 | null | 6,483 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. McCAUL: Committee on Foreign Affairs. H.R. 589. A bill to impose sanctions on the Supreme Leader of Iran and the President of Iran and their respective offices for human rights abuses and support for terrorism; with an amendment (Rept. 118-118, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. discharge of committee Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIII, the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, and Ways and Means discharged from further consideration. H.R. 589 referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-06-22-pt1-PgH3107 | null | 6,484 |
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-2023-06-22-pt1-PgH3110 | null | 6,485 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. McGOVERN: H.J. Res. 78. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article V. The single subject of this legislation is: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the authority of Congress and the States to regulate campaign financing, contributions, and spending. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-06-22-pt1-PgH3111-19 | null | 6,486 |
formal | thugs | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week the Senate passed legislation I helped lead with Senators Cruz, Menendez, and others that renames the street in front of the Cuban Embassy for Oswaldo Paya. Paya led a heroic and decades-long effort to bring basic democratic reforms to Cuba, which resulted in years of harassment that culminated in his death in 2012 when his car was run off the road by government thugs. And also last week, after years of urging by me and several colleagues, the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights released its verdict on this tragic event, confirming what we suspected all along, that the Cuban Government was responsible for his tragic death. This important judgement is a reminder that Paya's work and that of so many other brave Cubans fighting for basic freedoms remains a work in progress, one which I will continue to support. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-06-22-pt1-PgS2213-4 | null | 6,487 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, earlier this month, my state of Illinois lost one of our most dedicated public servants. Her name was Mary Ann Lamm. She was a trailblazer and a changemaker in Illinois politics. Most importantly, she was a dear friend of mine. During her many decades of service to our State, Mary Ann made history as the longest serving county recorder in Sangamon County. And really, it is no wonder why she was elected--and reelected to this position a record-breaking eight times. Every single day, Mary Ann lived up to the motto that she created, and affixed to the letterhead for the county recorder's office: ``Public Service. Working for you.'' And Mary Ann's tenacious spirit was only surpassed by her selflessness. Even though she was a giant in Sangamon County, there was no problem too small for her to solve. Whether you were starting a business or buying a home, her doors were always open--and she was always ready to help. From making sure your paperwork was filed on time, to protecting your personal financial information, Mary Ann mastered the complexities of local government to make it work for the people. Mary Ann also was a pioneer in building a bench of political talent in Central Illinois. And today, there is a generation of leaders throughout our State who look to her legacy as the model for public service. Like me, before moving to Springfield, Mary Ann was born and raised in East St. Louis. And to really understand how she developed her tireless work ethic, look no further than her mother Dorothy, who worked past the age of 100. Dorothy was a warden for the Sangamon County jail--and would even prepare meals for her fellow employees and county prisoners. Like Dorothy, Mary Ann not only had incredible culinary talents, she used those talents to bring people together through delicious, home-cooked meals. Mary Ann's career in public service began in 1963. At the age of 25, she was elected clerk for the village of Southern View, located smack dab in the heartland of Illinois. With fewer than 1,500 residents, Southern View was the perfect proving ground for Mary Ann's neighborly approach to public service. Whenever you needed her help, it was all hands on deck. Four years later, Mary Ann made her way to Springfield, where she was elected capital township trustee. And it was during this period that the two of us met for the first time. We were fast friends. When I first ran for office, Mary Ann was one of my most loyal supporters--and was among the first of my friends to help dust me off after a tough loss. And she was also among the first to celebrate in 1982, when I won my race for Congress. And Mary Ann always had a way of bringing people together. Whenever she hosted an event, just about everyone in town would show up--and not for the networking opportunities, but the food. She would prepare a seemingly endless supply of her homemade mostaccioli, a fan favorite. People would practically leap from their seats to get a taste. And everyone would leave with a full belly, along with a home-baked brownie, gently placed atop a napkin, for the road. As I mentioned, the crown jewel of Mary Ann's career in public service was the 32 years she served as Sangamon County Recorder. As county recorder, she ushered the office into the digital age, leading the transition from microfiche and microfilm to modems and modern computing. Under Mary Ann's leadership, the county recorder's office emerged as a nimble, accessible public asset that all of our residents in Sangamon County rely on to this day. Whenever I campaigned with Mary Ann, I was always surprised by not only how many people knew her, but how eager they were to shake her hand. She was humble, hard-working, and a hero to everyone she represented. Everything she touched, from every political campaign, to every elected office she held, turned to gold. She was one-of-a-kind and extended kindness to everyone who crossed her path. Loretta and I join Mary Ann's children Robert, Therese, and Melissa; her grandchildren Laura, Alyssa, Nick, Libby, Eric, and Sophia; her siblings Bob, John, Ginny, Kepp, and Tom; and all of her nieces and nephews in mourning her loss. We miss you dearly, Mary Ann, and I speak for everyone in our State when I say: Thank you for your service. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-06-22-pt1-PgS2213-5 | null | 6,488 |
formal | extremist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this month, the Supreme Court will issue some of the term's most consequential decisions. And if past is prologue, Washington Democrats will let the topline outcome of the cases determine their view of the Court's institutional legitimacy. A year ago this week, the Court corrected a half-century of badly reasoned precedent under Roe v. Wade that cost our Nation millions of innocent lives. The Democratic leader responded by accusing an ``extremist MAGA court'' of bringing on ``one of the darkest days our country has ever seen.'' But almost a year later, when the same exact Court issued a ruling he agreed with, the Democratic leader celebrated that ``democracy held firm.'' Democracy held firm--but only because the Court's opinion aligned with our colleague's political preferences. Unfortunately, this has been Washington Democrats' playbook for years. They have taught their base that, when they can't accomplish their political ends from within our institutions, it is the institutions that need to go. Last year, intimidation at the Supreme Court took an especially vivid turn. Activists threatened members of the Court and their families. One individual even plotted to assassinate a Justice. Here in Congress, Democrats have responded by trying to take hostage funding for the Justices' security unless a coequal branch of government restructured itself. The nine Justices of the Supreme Court are empowered by the Constitution to function above the political winds. And they should continue to do exactly that, no matter how many Washington Democrats demand otherwise. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2023-06-22-pt1-PgS2214-2 | null | 6,489 |
formal | MAGA | null | white supremacist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this month, the Supreme Court will issue some of the term's most consequential decisions. And if past is prologue, Washington Democrats will let the topline outcome of the cases determine their view of the Court's institutional legitimacy. A year ago this week, the Court corrected a half-century of badly reasoned precedent under Roe v. Wade that cost our Nation millions of innocent lives. The Democratic leader responded by accusing an ``extremist MAGA court'' of bringing on ``one of the darkest days our country has ever seen.'' But almost a year later, when the same exact Court issued a ruling he agreed with, the Democratic leader celebrated that ``democracy held firm.'' Democracy held firm--but only because the Court's opinion aligned with our colleague's political preferences. Unfortunately, this has been Washington Democrats' playbook for years. They have taught their base that, when they can't accomplish their political ends from within our institutions, it is the institutions that need to go. Last year, intimidation at the Supreme Court took an especially vivid turn. Activists threatened members of the Court and their families. One individual even plotted to assassinate a Justice. Here in Congress, Democrats have responded by trying to take hostage funding for the Justices' security unless a coequal branch of government restructured itself. The nine Justices of the Supreme Court are empowered by the Constitution to function above the political winds. And they should continue to do exactly that, no matter how many Washington Democrats demand otherwise. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2023-06-22-pt1-PgS2214-2 | null | 6,490 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for nearly 20 years, Scott Laughlin lit up the radio, welcoming WJBC listeners in the Bloomington, IL, area to a new day. It has been a few years since I have had the pleasure of being on the radio with Scott since he retired in 2019, but I would like to take a moment to wish him a happy birthday. We used to catch up monthly on his show, chatting about the big news of the day or the latest Cubs game. I like to think he had as much fun during those interviews as I did. On the air, I could always count on Scott to ask me thoughtful questions about the on-goings in Washington. And he was never shy about letting me know where he stood. On more than one occasion, he let me know I voted against his opinion. But with each political discussion we broached on the radio, he did so with the utmost respect and willingness to understand the other side--and with a good sense of humor, too. He was a gracious host to both his guests and listeners. Sadly, Scott cut his time at WJBC short, retiring a year ahead of his own schedule, when he discovered he had kidney cancer. In the 4 years since his diagnosis, Scott has fought hard, and his resolve continues to serve him today. His story, along with those of the nearly 82,000 Americans who receive this same diagnosis annually, reminds us why we faithfully advocate for medical research funding in hopes of finding a cure for cancer. While he has many fans from his time as a radio host, Scott's favorite listeners have always been his wife Lori; his two kids Casey and TJ; and his granddaughter Lucy. In his retirement, he has enjoyed extra time with them, sometimes spent on the golf course or relentlessly cheering on his teams: the Chicago Cubs and Bears, as well as the Illinois State University Redbirds. I miss chatting with Scott over the radio, but I am sure he has found new joy in retirement. As his birthday approaches--July 5th--I am wishing Scott a very happy birthday, hopefully spent celebrating with friends and family, and maybe a round of golf or two. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-06-22-pt1-PgS2214 | null | 6,491 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I thank Ranking Member Risch for his leadership in completing the resolution approving the ratification of this tax convention with Chile. And specifically, I am grateful for the opportunity to work together to include the following declaration in this resolution: ``In light of substantial changes made to the international provisions of Internal Revenue Code in 2017, the Senate declares that future tax treaties need to reflect such changes appropriately, including in Article 23. Therefore, based on discussions with the U.S. Department of the Treasury, additional work is required to evaluate the policy of Article 23 in addressing relief of double taxation and to agree on whether further changes to the terms of the Article are necessary for future income tax treaties.'' In light of the reservation amending article 23, I yield to the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to elaborate on the importance of this declaration. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CRAPO | Senate | CREC-2023-06-22-pt1-PgS2215 | null | 6,492 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great economist, a trailblazer, and a friend of mine: Dr. Bill Spriggs. Bill was born here in Washington, DC, to a professor and a schoolteacher. He shared his parents' love of learning and went on to attend Williams College for his undergraduate degree and the University of Wisconsin-Madison for his PhD in economics. Bill began his career in academia and brought a new lens to economic policy: calling attention to the role of race in our economy. Over the years, Bill mentored thousands of students at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College, Norfolk State University, and Howard University. Bill was committed to lifting up all voices in his classroom and helping all students, especially people of color, advance in a field dominated by White men. As Assistant Secretary of Labor during the Obama administration, Bill worked on a number of issues from trade to minimum wage, to racial disparities in the labor market. Bill then transitioned to be chief economist at the AFL-CIO, where he was a frequent and outspoken advocate for workers, in particular Black workers. Over his career of service, Bill's advocacy and policy expertise made a difference for so many. It is simple: Workers are better off because of Bill. And his impact extends far beyond the impressive roles he held; at every step of his career, Bill challenged his colleagues to consider how systemic racism in our economy hurts working families of color. In the summer of 2020, following the murder of George Floyd, Bill published a powerful open letter to his fellow economists where he criticized the field's approach to race as a factor in the economy. He called on economists to reflect on and rethink how they study race. And he asked that they commit to creating policies that uplift workers of color and their families. The letter served as a starting point for discussion about the Fed's role in economic inequality. His work shaped the national conversation. He found that Black workers were disproportionately hurt by import shocks to the economy, like NAFTA and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. His work reminded us that just as we were starting to create more jobs that support the middle class like manufacturing and make them more open to Black workers, our country's trade policy enabled the shipment of those jobs overseas. The work that we have to do now to rebuild our country with a real pro-American pro-worker industrial strategy that is finally inclusive to all stands on his shoulders. It is up to all of us to continue that conversation and uphold Bill's legacy. On a personal note, I had the privilege of working with Bill a number of times over the years. He testified before the Banking Housing and Urban Affairs Committee at least four times since I took over as the lead Democrat. Each time, Bill testified about policies that would help workers. He offered his support for COVID relief packages to get families through the pandemic. And he stood up for communities and people that have been overlooked by economic policy for far too long. Bill offered thoughtful counsel; he took time to talk to my staff and share his expertise. He was kind, thoughtful, and a brilliant economist. Bill understood that worker rights are intertwined with civil rights. And above all, he was committed to fighting for the dignity of work; he and I shared a goal that, one day, hard work will pay off for everyone no matter who you are or what you do. May we all follow Bill's example to dedicate our lives to service, to push toward that goal until every worker can count on the dignity of work. Our thoughts are with the Spriggs' family and with all those who knew and loved Bill. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2023-06-22-pt1-PgS2218-2 | null | 6,493 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great economist, a trailblazer, and a friend of mine: Dr. Bill Spriggs. Bill was born here in Washington, DC, to a professor and a schoolteacher. He shared his parents' love of learning and went on to attend Williams College for his undergraduate degree and the University of Wisconsin-Madison for his PhD in economics. Bill began his career in academia and brought a new lens to economic policy: calling attention to the role of race in our economy. Over the years, Bill mentored thousands of students at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College, Norfolk State University, and Howard University. Bill was committed to lifting up all voices in his classroom and helping all students, especially people of color, advance in a field dominated by White men. As Assistant Secretary of Labor during the Obama administration, Bill worked on a number of issues from trade to minimum wage, to racial disparities in the labor market. Bill then transitioned to be chief economist at the AFL-CIO, where he was a frequent and outspoken advocate for workers, in particular Black workers. Over his career of service, Bill's advocacy and policy expertise made a difference for so many. It is simple: Workers are better off because of Bill. And his impact extends far beyond the impressive roles he held; at every step of his career, Bill challenged his colleagues to consider how systemic racism in our economy hurts working families of color. In the summer of 2020, following the murder of George Floyd, Bill published a powerful open letter to his fellow economists where he criticized the field's approach to race as a factor in the economy. He called on economists to reflect on and rethink how they study race. And he asked that they commit to creating policies that uplift workers of color and their families. The letter served as a starting point for discussion about the Fed's role in economic inequality. His work shaped the national conversation. He found that Black workers were disproportionately hurt by import shocks to the economy, like NAFTA and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. His work reminded us that just as we were starting to create more jobs that support the middle class like manufacturing and make them more open to Black workers, our country's trade policy enabled the shipment of those jobs overseas. The work that we have to do now to rebuild our country with a real pro-American pro-worker industrial strategy that is finally inclusive to all stands on his shoulders. It is up to all of us to continue that conversation and uphold Bill's legacy. On a personal note, I had the privilege of working with Bill a number of times over the years. He testified before the Banking Housing and Urban Affairs Committee at least four times since I took over as the lead Democrat. Each time, Bill testified about policies that would help workers. He offered his support for COVID relief packages to get families through the pandemic. And he stood up for communities and people that have been overlooked by economic policy for far too long. Bill offered thoughtful counsel; he took time to talk to my staff and share his expertise. He was kind, thoughtful, and a brilliant economist. Bill understood that worker rights are intertwined with civil rights. And above all, he was committed to fighting for the dignity of work; he and I shared a goal that, one day, hard work will pay off for everyone no matter who you are or what you do. May we all follow Bill's example to dedicate our lives to service, to push toward that goal until every worker can count on the dignity of work. Our thoughts are with the Spriggs' family and with all those who knew and loved Bill. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2023-06-22-pt1-PgS2218-2 | null | 6,494 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great economist, a trailblazer, and a friend of mine: Dr. Bill Spriggs. Bill was born here in Washington, DC, to a professor and a schoolteacher. He shared his parents' love of learning and went on to attend Williams College for his undergraduate degree and the University of Wisconsin-Madison for his PhD in economics. Bill began his career in academia and brought a new lens to economic policy: calling attention to the role of race in our economy. Over the years, Bill mentored thousands of students at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College, Norfolk State University, and Howard University. Bill was committed to lifting up all voices in his classroom and helping all students, especially people of color, advance in a field dominated by White men. As Assistant Secretary of Labor during the Obama administration, Bill worked on a number of issues from trade to minimum wage, to racial disparities in the labor market. Bill then transitioned to be chief economist at the AFL-CIO, where he was a frequent and outspoken advocate for workers, in particular Black workers. Over his career of service, Bill's advocacy and policy expertise made a difference for so many. It is simple: Workers are better off because of Bill. And his impact extends far beyond the impressive roles he held; at every step of his career, Bill challenged his colleagues to consider how systemic racism in our economy hurts working families of color. In the summer of 2020, following the murder of George Floyd, Bill published a powerful open letter to his fellow economists where he criticized the field's approach to race as a factor in the economy. He called on economists to reflect on and rethink how they study race. And he asked that they commit to creating policies that uplift workers of color and their families. The letter served as a starting point for discussion about the Fed's role in economic inequality. His work shaped the national conversation. He found that Black workers were disproportionately hurt by import shocks to the economy, like NAFTA and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. His work reminded us that just as we were starting to create more jobs that support the middle class like manufacturing and make them more open to Black workers, our country's trade policy enabled the shipment of those jobs overseas. The work that we have to do now to rebuild our country with a real pro-American pro-worker industrial strategy that is finally inclusive to all stands on his shoulders. It is up to all of us to continue that conversation and uphold Bill's legacy. On a personal note, I had the privilege of working with Bill a number of times over the years. He testified before the Banking Housing and Urban Affairs Committee at least four times since I took over as the lead Democrat. Each time, Bill testified about policies that would help workers. He offered his support for COVID relief packages to get families through the pandemic. And he stood up for communities and people that have been overlooked by economic policy for far too long. Bill offered thoughtful counsel; he took time to talk to my staff and share his expertise. He was kind, thoughtful, and a brilliant economist. Bill understood that worker rights are intertwined with civil rights. And above all, he was committed to fighting for the dignity of work; he and I shared a goal that, one day, hard work will pay off for everyone no matter who you are or what you do. May we all follow Bill's example to dedicate our lives to service, to push toward that goal until every worker can count on the dignity of work. Our thoughts are with the Spriggs' family and with all those who knew and loved Bill. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2023-06-22-pt1-PgS2218-2 | null | 6,495 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the Westport Library as it celebrates the release of its first vinyl record. Public libraries serve vital roles in our communities, providing no-fee access to collections of books, films, and other media, as well as to computers and the internet. They are hubs of community interaction, and now, in Westport, CT, a creative outlet for local musicians. Founded in 1886, the Westport Library has been enriching the community for almost a century and a half. In addition to its full collection of books for readers of all ages, the library ishome to a MakerSpace, a Library of Things, a seed library, a cafe and store, and a collection of professional artwork. These resources make the Westport Library one of the best libraries in all of America--a ``noisy library,'' as its supporters say, and a true jewel of the community. Over the past year, Westport Library has added a new innovation to their impressive collection: Verso Studios, a state-of-the-art recording studio based in the library itself. On June 3, 2023, I was proud to join the library in celebrating the release of its first record: ``Verso Records: Volume One'' on vinyl. This record is the product of collaboration among local artists and is the first of its kind issued by a public library. This endeavor is an example of Westport at its best, the vision and vibrancy of the community and its commitment to artistic achievement, powering culture throughout the State of Connecticut. I applaud the innovative and important work done by the Westport Library and hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating all of the staff and supporters of the library on this impressive achievement. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BLUMENTHAL | Senate | CREC-2023-06-22-pt1-PgS2219-6 | null | 6,496 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | By Mr. PADILLA (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Wyden): S. 2134. A bill to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to require research and development regarding a policy to insure wine grapes against losses due to smoke exposure, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2023-06-22-pt1-PgS2227-2 | null | 6,497 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | By Mr. PADILLA (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Wyden): S. 2134. A bill to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to require research and development regarding a policy to insure wine grapes against losses due to smoke exposure, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2023-06-22-pt1-PgS2227 | null | 6,498 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. Young, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Hagerty, and Mr. Coons) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 273 Whereas, to maintain the role of the United States as a global economic leader and protect the national security interests of the United States, the United States must strengthen economic relations with countries in the Western Hemisphere; Whereas ongoing supply chain disruptions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate the need for the United States to increase supply chain resiliency through reshoring and nearshoring initiatives; Whereas, in 2019, the People's Republic of China was the top supplier of goods imported into the United States, providing significant quantities of rare earth minerals, pharmaceutical ingredients, medical equipment, and other goods vital to the economic prosperity and national security of the United States; Whereas the COVID-19 pandemic and production outages and shipping disruptions in the People's Republic of China have jeopardized worldwide access to critical goods, contributing to an unprecedented, ongoing supply chain crisis that has exposed the severe risks of concentrating global supply chains in the People's Republic of China; Whereas Congress has raised concerns about the reliance of the United States on global supply chains based in the People's Republic of China; Whereas the People's Republic of China has shown its willingness to use critical supplies as a political tool to advance the goals of the Chinese Communist Party, including when the People's Republic of China-- (1) threatened to withhold rare earth mineral shipments to Japan; and (2) utilized personal protective equipment and vaccines as a diplomatic tool; Whereas findings made pursuant to a supply chain review required by President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., under Executive Order 14017 (86 Fed. Reg. 11849) and released on June 8, 2021, recommended that, in addition to expanding domestic production capacity, the United States Government use diplomatic and financial tools to cooperate with allies to create more diverse, resilient, and secure supply chains; Whereas 8 of the 13 countries in the world that recognize Taiwan are in Latin America and the Caribbean, and nearshoring initiatives can help decrease the susceptibility of such countries to coercive economic pressure from the People's Republic of China; Whereas the United States has free trade agreements in effect with 12 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, more than in any other geographic region, providing significant incentives to relocate international supply chains that cannot be relocated to the United States to Latin America and the Caribbean; Whereas, in addition to existing free trade agreements and the geographic proximity of countries in Latin America and the Caribbean to the United States, there are several significant advantages for the United States Government and United States entities to relocate supply chains from the People's Republic of China to the Western Hemisphere, including-- (1) reduced distance to markets in the United States, which will lower freight costs, enable quicker adaptability to fluctuating consumer demand, and reduce the energy used to transport goods; (2) longstanding bilateral ties and shared democratic values, which lessen the risk of geopolitical disruptions to supply chains; (3) comparative advantages for sourcing and manufacturing key critical goods, including rare earth minerals, pharmaceuticals, medical goods, and semiconductors, when there is a historical inability for such goods to be entirely sourced or manufactured in the United States; and (4) access to a highly qualified and young working-age population; Whereas the report entitled ``Widening the Aperture: Nearshoring in Our `Near Abroad' '' released by the Wilson Center in April 2021 provided evidence that increasing and strengthening supply chains regionally, particularly in Colombia, Mexico, and other countries in the Caribbean and Central America, will, on average, create more jobs in the United States than international supply chains located in other geographic regions; Whereas switching as few as 15 percent of imports into the United States from the top 10 source countries of such imports outside of the Western Hemisphere to countries in Latin America and the Caribbean would increase exports from Latin America and the Caribbean by $72,000,000,000 annually, helping the region recover from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and reducing pressures encouraging migration to the United States; Whereas, despite existing and growing opportunities for countries in Latin America and the Caribbean to become crucial actors in global supply chains, including technological advances that have diminished the need to produce in countries with a low cost of labor, challenges to nearshoring remain, including-- (1) concerns about the rule of law, corruption, and criminal activities that discourage foreign direct investment or significantly raise the costs of shifting production to the region; (2) concerns about compliance with and enforcement of international labor and environmental standards; (3) underdeveloped physical and digital infrastructure; (4) regional economic fragmentation; and (5) comparatively lower levels of vocational training; Whereas the governments of several countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, including Colombia, the Dominican Republic, and Mexico, have sought to strengthen economic relations with the United States and launched initiatives to incentivize nearshoring; Whereas the Inter-American Development Bank (commonly known as ``IDB'') has prioritized efforts to encourage nearshoring in Latin America and the Caribbean, including by-- (1) making economic integration and the strengthening of regional supply chains 1 of 5 core pillars in the agenda outlined in the document entitled ``Vision 2025, Reinvest in the Americas''; (2) including nearshoring as a business line of IDB Invest for the first time in the history of IDB; (3) hosting a high-level dialogue with more than 500 private sector leaders on December 2, 2020, to assess how to increase production capacity and supply chain resilience in the region; and (4) launching the largest private sector coalition in the history of the IDB to explore opportunities for reinvesting in countries in the Western Hemisphere, including through nearshoring initiatives and a toolkit to incentivize and finance nearshoring activities in the Western Hemisphere; Whereas the United States Government has taken steps to advance efforts that would facilitate reshoring and nearshoring in the Western Hemisphere, including by-- (1) announcing the first-ever semiconductor forum between the Governments of the United States, Mexico, and Canada and the private sector to align government policies and increase investment in regional semiconductor supply chains; and (2) developing the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity to expand regional trade ties, bolster regional economic competitiveness, and strengthen regional cooperation on supply chain resilience, labor and environmental standards, rule of law and anti-corruption initiatives, and other critical issues; and Whereas the United States Government can further leverage diplomatic, foreign assistance, and financing tools to strengthen the participation of Latin American and the Caribbean in global supply chains and address challenges to nearshoring, including through the activities of the United States Agency for International Development and the United States International Development Finance Corporation: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes that increased tensions between the United States and the People's Republic of China and the COVID-19 pandemic have-- (A) exposed severe vulnerabilities attributable to overreliance by the United States and other countries on supply chains based solely or mainly in the People's Republic of China; and (B) heightened the importance of the United States diversifying its supply chains through reshoring and nearshoring initiatives to increase resiliency against future disruptions; (2) emphasizes that reshoring efforts of sufficient scale to increase domestic production capacity and relocate supply chains to the United States remain critical and should be encouraged and implemented; (3) emphasizes that-- (A) nearshoring efforts should be pursued in a complementary fashion to better achieve more resilient, diverse, and secure supply chains, particularly for goods unlikely to be produced in the United States; (B) nearshoring in Latin America and the Caribbean, relative to relying on supply chains in other geographic regions, has the greatest potential to contribute to the economic prosperity and security of the United States while also advancing the post-pandemic economic recovery of countries in the Western Hemisphere; (C) nearshoring in Latin America and the Caribbean provides greater opportunities for expanding co-production operations and other cooperative business ventures with United States entities; and (D) nearshoring in Latin America and the Caribbean can complement and enhance efforts by the United States to support democratic consolidation across the region by strengthening the rule of law, encouraging competitiveness, promoting education and vocational training, and raising standards on corruption, labor, and environmental issues; (4) supports initiatives by the Inter-American Development Bank, the Government of Canada, governments in Latin America and the Caribbean, and the private sector to finance, incentivize, or otherwise promote nearshoring in Latin America and the Caribbean; (5) encourages the United States Agency for International Development and the United States International Development Finance Corporation to strengthen programmatic support for initiatives likely to facilitate the relocation of global supply chains to the Western Hemisphere, including through increased collaboration with each other, the private sector, the Inter-American Development Bank, Canada, and countries in Latin America and the Caribbean; (6) calls for governments in Latin America and the Caribbean to increase opportunities for nearshoring in the region by-- (A) modernizing and consolidating physical and digital infrastructure; (B) combating corruption, strengthening the rule of law, promoting education and vocational training, enhancing labor and environmental standards, and improving democratic governance; and (C) pursuing other efforts to facilitate the ease of doing business in and attract foreign direct investment to the region, including by leveraging strong relationships with Taiwan; and (7) urges the Secretary of State, in coordination with the United States Agency for International Development, the United States International Development Finance Corporation, and the heads of all other relevant Federal agencies and departments, to prioritize efforts to advance nearshoring in Latin America and the Caribbean, including by-- (A) strengthening support for the activities described in paragraph (6); (B) engaging with governments in the Western Hemisphere to explore opportunities to lower trade barriers, streamline customs and other regulations, support capacity building programs to strengthen environmental and labor standards, establish incentives for mutually beneficial co-production arrangements, and facilitate economic integration of the region; (C) strengthening legal regimes and monitoring and enforcement measures relating to labor standards to ensure that-- (i) any enhanced sourcing relationship with a country does not support or beget labor abuse or other human rights abuses, such as those found in the People's Republic of China; and (ii) any new investment under a nearshoring program has sufficient labor standards and benefits the workers in such country; (D) ensuring that nearshoring activities are consistent with efforts to improve supply chain energy efficiency, reduce the energy used to transport goods, and advance environmental sustainability; (E) working in partnership with multilateral development banks and private investors to create incentives for entities to relocate supply chains from the People's Republic of China to the Western Hemisphere, including by financing the development of regional technology hubs with strong labor and environmental regulations; and (F) using all available options, including transparency mechanisms, to ensure that access to supply chains in the Western Hemisphere cannot be exploited by the People's Republic of China. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-06-22-pt1-PgS2239-2 | null | 6,499 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.