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
|
job creator
| null |
conservative
|
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, our healthcare sector continues to battle the coronavirus at every level. Doctors, nurses, hospital workers, researchers, and public health leaders are working constantly to protect Americans and fight this invader. Unfortunately, the last 2 months' stoppage of much of our national life was never going to permanently extinguish the virus. That task will be ongoing. The stated purpose of this effort was to prevent a rapid spike that could have completely overwhelmed the medical capacities of many areas. The patriotic sacrifices of the American people have worked. We have bought our healthcare system that breathing room we needed. As we cautiously move forward, major precautions will remain in place. Some routines will not go back to normal for a long time. But as a nation, we will need to regroup and find a more sustainable middle ground between total lockdown and total normalcy. Let me say that again. We need to find a middle ground between total lockdown and total normalcy. While we keep battling the virus through testing, tracing, isolation, treatment, and hopefully soon, a vaccine, we need to smartly and safely begin to reopen our country. If Americans want to go back to work and back to school in the fall, we will need to reopen the country. No doubt, there will be many discussions here in Congress about more ways we can help make that happen. Already, we are hearing that House Democrats are cobbling together another big laundry list of pet priorities. Even the media is describing it as a partisan wish list with no chance of becoming law. That is exactly the wrong approach. It is the wrong approach when a senior Democrat calls this pandemic ``a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' It is the wrong approach when former Vice President Biden calls this tragedy an ``incredible opportunity . . . to fundamentally transform the country.'' The American people don't need a far-left transformation. They just need a path back to the historically prosperous and optimistic moment that they had built for themselves until about 12 weeks ago. The American people don't need a far-left transformation. They just need a path back to the historically prosperous and optimistic moment they had built for themselves until about 12 weeks ago. American workers don't need Washington to inflict some far-left, extrememakeover on our country. They need us to get rid of obstacles that might stand in their way. One such obstacle is becoming obvious. A second epidemic of frivolous lawsuits could follow the actual pandemic and crush our recovery before it begins. Already, more than two-thirds of independent business owners say they are specifically worried about a legal liability minefield getting in the way of reopening. Already, lawyers have begun filing hundreds of COVID-related complaints in courts all across our country. This is exactly the kind of hostile environment that could take our reopening and recovery from challenging to downright impossible. So the Senate is going to act. Senate Republicans are preparing a major package of COVID-related liability reforms to foster our economic recovery. This package, which Senator Cornyn and I are spearheading, will extend significant new protections to the people who have been on the frontlines of this response and those who will be on the frontlines of our reopening. First and foremost, we are going to protect the healthcare workers who have been locked in combat with this mysterious new disease. We are not going to let healthcare heroes emerge from this crisis facing a tidal wave of medical malpractice lawsuits so that trial lawyers can line their pockets. We aren't going to federalize the entirety of medical malpractice law, but we are going to raise the liability threshold for COVID-related malpractice lawsuits. This will give our doctors, nurses, and other healthcare providers a lot more security as they clock in every day and risk themselves to take care of strangers. Second, we are including new legal protections for the businesses, nonprofits, and government agencies that have kept serving throughout the crisis and for those that will need to lead the reopening. We are facing the worst layoffs since the Great Depression and a storm of uncertainty for Main Street businesses. Americans want to get back to work, and we need to do everything in our power to help that happen. Also, K-12 schools, colleges, and universities right now are completely uncertain about the fall. If we want schools to reopen this fall, we will have to create the conditions to make that possible. If we want schools to reopen this fall, we have to create the conditions to make that possible. If we want even an outside shot at the kind of brisk rehiring that American workers deserve, we have to make sure opportunistic trial lawyers are not lurking on the sidewalk outside every small business in America, waiting to slap them with a lawsuit the instant they turn the lights back on. Our legislation is going to create a legal safe harbor--safe harbor--for businesses, nonprofits, governments, and workers and schools that are following public health guidelines to the best of their ability. To be clear now, we are not talking about immunity from lawsuits. There will be accountability for actual gross negligence and intentional misconduct. That will continue. We aren't going to provide immunity, but we are going to provide some certainty. If we want American workers to clock back in, we need employers to know that if they follow the guidelines, they will not be left to drown in opportunistic litigation. We are going to make sure it is the trial lawyers and not struggling job creators who will need to clear a very high legal burden. In addition, I hope our bill will find ways to expand existing protections for the manufacturers of therapeutics, diagnostics, and potential vaccines--things we are urging the private sector to produce as fast as possible. And I hope we will be able to create new protections for other medical equipment manufacturers, as well, like the policies we put in the CARES Act to increase the supply of masks. So it is all well and good to give rhetorical tributes here on the floor to healthcare professionals, essential workers, key industries, small businesses, charities, and nonprofits. Rhetoric is well and good. Words matter, but actions matter more. Americans on the frontlines do not just need Senators to talk about how important they are. They need action. They need us to provide the same kinds of commonsense legal protections that Congress has enacted a number of times previously in difficult or unusual periods. American taxpayers deserve these protections as well. The men and women of this country just saw Congress commit historic amounts of their own money to sweeping recovery legislation so that we could help healthcare facilities and small businesses survive the crisis. We are not going to stand idly by while a small group of wealthy lawyers vacuum up this relief money and redirect it into their own pockets. Strong legal protections are the right move for doctors, nurses, hospitals, schools, and universities; for workers who want their jobs back, for small business owners who are struggling to stay open, and for nonprofits that have helped the vulnerable; and for taxpayers, who want their money to finance a real national rescue and not the biggest trial lawyer bonanza in American history. Senate Republicans are going to continue to develop this legislation. It is going to be a redline for us in any future coronavirus legislation. The administration has already stated its support for action on this issue as well. American heroes across our country deserve these basic protections. This Senate majority will make sure they get them. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. McCONNELL
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-12-pt1-PgS2357-7
| null | 600
|
formal
|
job creators
| null |
conservative
|
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, our healthcare sector continues to battle the coronavirus at every level. Doctors, nurses, hospital workers, researchers, and public health leaders are working constantly to protect Americans and fight this invader. Unfortunately, the last 2 months' stoppage of much of our national life was never going to permanently extinguish the virus. That task will be ongoing. The stated purpose of this effort was to prevent a rapid spike that could have completely overwhelmed the medical capacities of many areas. The patriotic sacrifices of the American people have worked. We have bought our healthcare system that breathing room we needed. As we cautiously move forward, major precautions will remain in place. Some routines will not go back to normal for a long time. But as a nation, we will need to regroup and find a more sustainable middle ground between total lockdown and total normalcy. Let me say that again. We need to find a middle ground between total lockdown and total normalcy. While we keep battling the virus through testing, tracing, isolation, treatment, and hopefully soon, a vaccine, we need to smartly and safely begin to reopen our country. If Americans want to go back to work and back to school in the fall, we will need to reopen the country. No doubt, there will be many discussions here in Congress about more ways we can help make that happen. Already, we are hearing that House Democrats are cobbling together another big laundry list of pet priorities. Even the media is describing it as a partisan wish list with no chance of becoming law. That is exactly the wrong approach. It is the wrong approach when a senior Democrat calls this pandemic ``a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' It is the wrong approach when former Vice President Biden calls this tragedy an ``incredible opportunity . . . to fundamentally transform the country.'' The American people don't need a far-left transformation. They just need a path back to the historically prosperous and optimistic moment that they had built for themselves until about 12 weeks ago. The American people don't need a far-left transformation. They just need a path back to the historically prosperous and optimistic moment they had built for themselves until about 12 weeks ago. American workers don't need Washington to inflict some far-left, extrememakeover on our country. They need us to get rid of obstacles that might stand in their way. One such obstacle is becoming obvious. A second epidemic of frivolous lawsuits could follow the actual pandemic and crush our recovery before it begins. Already, more than two-thirds of independent business owners say they are specifically worried about a legal liability minefield getting in the way of reopening. Already, lawyers have begun filing hundreds of COVID-related complaints in courts all across our country. This is exactly the kind of hostile environment that could take our reopening and recovery from challenging to downright impossible. So the Senate is going to act. Senate Republicans are preparing a major package of COVID-related liability reforms to foster our economic recovery. This package, which Senator Cornyn and I are spearheading, will extend significant new protections to the people who have been on the frontlines of this response and those who will be on the frontlines of our reopening. First and foremost, we are going to protect the healthcare workers who have been locked in combat with this mysterious new disease. We are not going to let healthcare heroes emerge from this crisis facing a tidal wave of medical malpractice lawsuits so that trial lawyers can line their pockets. We aren't going to federalize the entirety of medical malpractice law, but we are going to raise the liability threshold for COVID-related malpractice lawsuits. This will give our doctors, nurses, and other healthcare providers a lot more security as they clock in every day and risk themselves to take care of strangers. Second, we are including new legal protections for the businesses, nonprofits, and government agencies that have kept serving throughout the crisis and for those that will need to lead the reopening. We are facing the worst layoffs since the Great Depression and a storm of uncertainty for Main Street businesses. Americans want to get back to work, and we need to do everything in our power to help that happen. Also, K-12 schools, colleges, and universities right now are completely uncertain about the fall. If we want schools to reopen this fall, we will have to create the conditions to make that possible. If we want schools to reopen this fall, we have to create the conditions to make that possible. If we want even an outside shot at the kind of brisk rehiring that American workers deserve, we have to make sure opportunistic trial lawyers are not lurking on the sidewalk outside every small business in America, waiting to slap them with a lawsuit the instant they turn the lights back on. Our legislation is going to create a legal safe harbor--safe harbor--for businesses, nonprofits, governments, and workers and schools that are following public health guidelines to the best of their ability. To be clear now, we are not talking about immunity from lawsuits. There will be accountability for actual gross negligence and intentional misconduct. That will continue. We aren't going to provide immunity, but we are going to provide some certainty. If we want American workers to clock back in, we need employers to know that if they follow the guidelines, they will not be left to drown in opportunistic litigation. We are going to make sure it is the trial lawyers and not struggling job creators who will need to clear a very high legal burden. In addition, I hope our bill will find ways to expand existing protections for the manufacturers of therapeutics, diagnostics, and potential vaccines--things we are urging the private sector to produce as fast as possible. And I hope we will be able to create new protections for other medical equipment manufacturers, as well, like the policies we put in the CARES Act to increase the supply of masks. So it is all well and good to give rhetorical tributes here on the floor to healthcare professionals, essential workers, key industries, small businesses, charities, and nonprofits. Rhetoric is well and good. Words matter, but actions matter more. Americans on the frontlines do not just need Senators to talk about how important they are. They need action. They need us to provide the same kinds of commonsense legal protections that Congress has enacted a number of times previously in difficult or unusual periods. American taxpayers deserve these protections as well. The men and women of this country just saw Congress commit historic amounts of their own money to sweeping recovery legislation so that we could help healthcare facilities and small businesses survive the crisis. We are not going to stand idly by while a small group of wealthy lawyers vacuum up this relief money and redirect it into their own pockets. Strong legal protections are the right move for doctors, nurses, hospitals, schools, and universities; for workers who want their jobs back, for small business owners who are struggling to stay open, and for nonprofits that have helped the vulnerable; and for taxpayers, who want their money to finance a real national rescue and not the biggest trial lawyer bonanza in American history. Senate Republicans are going to continue to develop this legislation. It is going to be a redline for us in any future coronavirus legislation. The administration has already stated its support for action on this issue as well. American heroes across our country deserve these basic protections. This Senate majority will make sure they get them. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. McCONNELL
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-12-pt1-PgS2357-7
| null | 601
|
formal
|
the Fed
| null |
antisemitic
|
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, no challenge in our lifetime resembles the depth of our current challenge. We have faced diseases, recessions, and natural disasters, but at no time in my lifetime has a public health crisis on this scale been paired with such an extensive economic disaster. Finally--finally--we are beginning to see signs that the spread of this evil disease has abated in parts of the country--not over but at least the curve is going down. My home State of New York is just beginning to turn the corner, but, unfortunately, there are many parts of the country that have not yet reached their peak. The unemployment rolls are as long as they have been since the Great Depression. Working Americans are struggling to pay rent and put food on the table, and many have no idea when the next paycheck may arrive. It breaks your heart to see people waiting for hours in their cars to line up at food banks. When they are interviewed by the press, they are people who never went to a food bank before. That is how deep and troubling this crisis is. So we in Congress have an obligation to do the Nation's business during this time of crisis, to be focusing on this crisis, to help the millions of American workers and businesses pleading--pleading--for assistance. The Constitution instructs us to provide for the common welfare, but at this critical juncture in our Nation's history, the Republican leadership, led by Leader McConnell, is ducking their responsibility, plain and simple. Leader McConnell has yet to schedule any legislative business for the floor of the Senate this month having to do with COVID. It has taken sustained pressure from Senate Democrats to force our Republican colleagues to conduct even the routine business of holding hearings on the coronavirus. We have had a few hearings now, but not many. Where is the SBA Administrator to talk about the problems in PPP? Where is Secretary Scalia to talk about the problems in unemployment insurance? Where are the OSHA executives to talk about how we protect workers from this pandemic, particularly when they are required to go to work? They are not around. Even the hearings we are having are slow. They are sort of eked out liketoothpaste from a tube. The word is we are hearing from Mnuchin and Powell on the 19th. That is close to 2 months after we passed COVID 3. That is not oversight. That is not Congress's job--at any time. It is made even worse because we are in a crisis. Then, last night, amazingly, the Republican leader explained that Republicans have ``not yet felt the urgency of acting immediately.'' Let me repeat that. With millions of Americans sick and tens of thousands dying, with depression levels of unemployment, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, said that Republicans have ``not yet felt the urgency of acting immediately.'' We live in a divided nation, but one thing that pretty much everyone agrees on is that there is a great deal of urgency right now. Leader McConnell, there is nothing more urgent to a family that is struggling to feed their children and keep a roof over their heads. Leader McConnell, there is nothing more urgent to a small business owner who is inches away from closing the doors of his life's work. The Republican leadership needs to wake up--wake up--to the dire economic reality tens of millions of Americans are facing. We must pass big, bold legislation to confront the crisis before us. That is just what the House of Representatives is working on right now. We don't believe that our two parties will agree on everything we must do, but at the very least--at the very least--we should agree there is an urgency to provide relief to our citizens who are suffering and struggling. President Hoover lacked the urgency to get the Federal Government involved at the outset of the Great Depression. Every history book teaches us that his error prolonged and likely deepened the suffering of American workers. When Republican leader looks at unemployment numbers and say that we don't need to act immediately, that government has done enough already, they are the latter-day Herbert Hoovers, and I fear it could lead to similar results, a deeper and longer recession, and--God forbid, but it is not out of the question--a second Great Depression because of the inaction and incompetence of the President, being followed obediently, wrongly by the Republican Senators. The lack of urgency in the Republican Party extends down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Oval Office. From almost the very beginning of this crisis, President Trump has downplayed its severity and tried to wish it out of existence. The President said coronavirus might disappear ``miraculously''--his word. He said it was a hoax. He said the warm weather might take care of it. He pitched quack medicines and speculated that a vaccine could be ready in 2 months. Two months ago, the President said that ``anybody who wants a test can get a test,'' which is not even close to being true. The President's words are reckless--constant belittling of the crisis, ignoring the crisis, burying the truth, and burying his head in the sand--and it has prolonged and made the crisis worse, and the American people know it. That is why he lashes out--the President does--at reporters who ask him fair questions. That is why. He knows he is to blame for a good part of the depth and prolongation of this crisis. He knows that. Yet he can't bring himself to face the truth. He can't bring himself to tell the American people the truth. Pitching quack medicines, telling people it is going to go away, saying yesterday ``that we have met the moment and we have prevailed.'' What planet is he on? More than 30 million are unemployed, and ``we have prevailed''? There are 1.3 million infected and 80,000 American fatalities, and those numbers are still growing. And ``we have prevailed''? The President's comments show a stunning disregard for the truth, and it hurts every American. I don't care what your politics is. No one should tolerate a President who ignores the truth, says whatever pops into his head, whether it is true or false or dangerous, and then moves on his merry way to speak the next untruth and talk about the next quack cure. The President's comments show a stunning disregard for the truth. It may have been in the Rose Garden and not on the deck of a battleship, but President Trump saying ``We have prevailed'' is akin to declaring ``mission accomplished'' long before the battles are over and the war is won. Later on, the President, as usual, tries to correct what he said--or his advisers do. He said he only meant testing, that we have prevailed on testing. But that is false too. Even the corrections are false. The United States is testing about 300,000 people a day. Most experts believe the number is inadequate to stop this outbreak and ensure that when we reopen, we do so safely. We have prevailed on testing? Not remotely. Here is what is so ironic about the President hiding his head in the sand and not tackling the testing issue in a real way. He is desperate that we get back to work, but the only way to get back to work is when we have enough tests--not just for those who are very ill but for anyone who wants it. You know, the White House--they all test. Anyone who walks in the White House is tested. Why isn't that good enough for all the American people? Why is it that even in States that have opened up, like Georgia, the stores are still empty? Because people are worried, justifiably. The way to remove that worry or at least greatly reduce it is to make sure everyone can be tested. When New Rochelle became the first quarantined city, I called the mayor and said: What do you need to get rid of this quarantine? He said he needed enough testing so that he could test every person in New Rochelle, and those who tested positive, he would say they have to quarantine and stay home, and those who didn't could go to work and shop in the stores and get our community going. Most of the countries--I think just about every one of the countries that has dealt successfully with the coronavirus has had far more testing at the right times and the right places than we have. Maybe Dr. Fauci can set things straight this morning. Dr. Fauci and a few other administration officials are testifying before the HELP Committee remotely. It will be one of the first times that Fauci and the others have appeared publicly without the President lurking over their shoulders, modifying their answers, or directly contradicting their advice. Dr. Fauci, please don't pull any punches, particularly when you are asked questions. We know the White House may have to approve the statement you make, and they will mute it. It was muted this morning and very technical. But you don't have to do that when the questions are asked. Don't pull punches. Tell the American people the truth. Dr. Fauci, you have an obligation to tell the American people the truth because only that will save lives and reduce the economic length of this crisis. And, Dr. Fauci, maybe if you tell the truth in this opportunity--a hearing without the President looking over your shoulder--maybe your testimony, Dr. Fauci--I hope your testimony, Dr. Fauci, reaches not only the American people but a President who is ready to throw caution to the wind in order to reopen the country. Please, Dr. Fauci, don't pull punches.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. SCHUMER
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-12-pt1-PgS2358-2
| null | 602
|
formal
|
welfare
| null |
racist
|
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, no challenge in our lifetime resembles the depth of our current challenge. We have faced diseases, recessions, and natural disasters, but at no time in my lifetime has a public health crisis on this scale been paired with such an extensive economic disaster. Finally--finally--we are beginning to see signs that the spread of this evil disease has abated in parts of the country--not over but at least the curve is going down. My home State of New York is just beginning to turn the corner, but, unfortunately, there are many parts of the country that have not yet reached their peak. The unemployment rolls are as long as they have been since the Great Depression. Working Americans are struggling to pay rent and put food on the table, and many have no idea when the next paycheck may arrive. It breaks your heart to see people waiting for hours in their cars to line up at food banks. When they are interviewed by the press, they are people who never went to a food bank before. That is how deep and troubling this crisis is. So we in Congress have an obligation to do the Nation's business during this time of crisis, to be focusing on this crisis, to help the millions of American workers and businesses pleading--pleading--for assistance. The Constitution instructs us to provide for the common welfare, but at this critical juncture in our Nation's history, the Republican leadership, led by Leader McConnell, is ducking their responsibility, plain and simple. Leader McConnell has yet to schedule any legislative business for the floor of the Senate this month having to do with COVID. It has taken sustained pressure from Senate Democrats to force our Republican colleagues to conduct even the routine business of holding hearings on the coronavirus. We have had a few hearings now, but not many. Where is the SBA Administrator to talk about the problems in PPP? Where is Secretary Scalia to talk about the problems in unemployment insurance? Where are the OSHA executives to talk about how we protect workers from this pandemic, particularly when they are required to go to work? They are not around. Even the hearings we are having are slow. They are sort of eked out liketoothpaste from a tube. The word is we are hearing from Mnuchin and Powell on the 19th. That is close to 2 months after we passed COVID 3. That is not oversight. That is not Congress's job--at any time. It is made even worse because we are in a crisis. Then, last night, amazingly, the Republican leader explained that Republicans have ``not yet felt the urgency of acting immediately.'' Let me repeat that. With millions of Americans sick and tens of thousands dying, with depression levels of unemployment, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, said that Republicans have ``not yet felt the urgency of acting immediately.'' We live in a divided nation, but one thing that pretty much everyone agrees on is that there is a great deal of urgency right now. Leader McConnell, there is nothing more urgent to a family that is struggling to feed their children and keep a roof over their heads. Leader McConnell, there is nothing more urgent to a small business owner who is inches away from closing the doors of his life's work. The Republican leadership needs to wake up--wake up--to the dire economic reality tens of millions of Americans are facing. We must pass big, bold legislation to confront the crisis before us. That is just what the House of Representatives is working on right now. We don't believe that our two parties will agree on everything we must do, but at the very least--at the very least--we should agree there is an urgency to provide relief to our citizens who are suffering and struggling. President Hoover lacked the urgency to get the Federal Government involved at the outset of the Great Depression. Every history book teaches us that his error prolonged and likely deepened the suffering of American workers. When Republican leader looks at unemployment numbers and say that we don't need to act immediately, that government has done enough already, they are the latter-day Herbert Hoovers, and I fear it could lead to similar results, a deeper and longer recession, and--God forbid, but it is not out of the question--a second Great Depression because of the inaction and incompetence of the President, being followed obediently, wrongly by the Republican Senators. The lack of urgency in the Republican Party extends down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Oval Office. From almost the very beginning of this crisis, President Trump has downplayed its severity and tried to wish it out of existence. The President said coronavirus might disappear ``miraculously''--his word. He said it was a hoax. He said the warm weather might take care of it. He pitched quack medicines and speculated that a vaccine could be ready in 2 months. Two months ago, the President said that ``anybody who wants a test can get a test,'' which is not even close to being true. The President's words are reckless--constant belittling of the crisis, ignoring the crisis, burying the truth, and burying his head in the sand--and it has prolonged and made the crisis worse, and the American people know it. That is why he lashes out--the President does--at reporters who ask him fair questions. That is why. He knows he is to blame for a good part of the depth and prolongation of this crisis. He knows that. Yet he can't bring himself to face the truth. He can't bring himself to tell the American people the truth. Pitching quack medicines, telling people it is going to go away, saying yesterday ``that we have met the moment and we have prevailed.'' What planet is he on? More than 30 million are unemployed, and ``we have prevailed''? There are 1.3 million infected and 80,000 American fatalities, and those numbers are still growing. And ``we have prevailed''? The President's comments show a stunning disregard for the truth, and it hurts every American. I don't care what your politics is. No one should tolerate a President who ignores the truth, says whatever pops into his head, whether it is true or false or dangerous, and then moves on his merry way to speak the next untruth and talk about the next quack cure. The President's comments show a stunning disregard for the truth. It may have been in the Rose Garden and not on the deck of a battleship, but President Trump saying ``We have prevailed'' is akin to declaring ``mission accomplished'' long before the battles are over and the war is won. Later on, the President, as usual, tries to correct what he said--or his advisers do. He said he only meant testing, that we have prevailed on testing. But that is false too. Even the corrections are false. The United States is testing about 300,000 people a day. Most experts believe the number is inadequate to stop this outbreak and ensure that when we reopen, we do so safely. We have prevailed on testing? Not remotely. Here is what is so ironic about the President hiding his head in the sand and not tackling the testing issue in a real way. He is desperate that we get back to work, but the only way to get back to work is when we have enough tests--not just for those who are very ill but for anyone who wants it. You know, the White House--they all test. Anyone who walks in the White House is tested. Why isn't that good enough for all the American people? Why is it that even in States that have opened up, like Georgia, the stores are still empty? Because people are worried, justifiably. The way to remove that worry or at least greatly reduce it is to make sure everyone can be tested. When New Rochelle became the first quarantined city, I called the mayor and said: What do you need to get rid of this quarantine? He said he needed enough testing so that he could test every person in New Rochelle, and those who tested positive, he would say they have to quarantine and stay home, and those who didn't could go to work and shop in the stores and get our community going. Most of the countries--I think just about every one of the countries that has dealt successfully with the coronavirus has had far more testing at the right times and the right places than we have. Maybe Dr. Fauci can set things straight this morning. Dr. Fauci and a few other administration officials are testifying before the HELP Committee remotely. It will be one of the first times that Fauci and the others have appeared publicly without the President lurking over their shoulders, modifying their answers, or directly contradicting their advice. Dr. Fauci, please don't pull any punches, particularly when you are asked questions. We know the White House may have to approve the statement you make, and they will mute it. It was muted this morning and very technical. But you don't have to do that when the questions are asked. Don't pull punches. Tell the American people the truth. Dr. Fauci, you have an obligation to tell the American people the truth because only that will save lives and reduce the economic length of this crisis. And, Dr. Fauci, maybe if you tell the truth in this opportunity--a hearing without the President looking over your shoulder--maybe your testimony, Dr. Fauci--I hope your testimony, Dr. Fauci, reaches not only the American people but a President who is ready to throw caution to the wind in order to reopen the country. Please, Dr. Fauci, don't pull punches.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. SCHUMER
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-12-pt1-PgS2358-2
| null | 603
|
formal
|
the Fed
| null |
antisemitic
|
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there was a meeting last week--a telephone conference call--of the leaders of a dozen major nations around the world. It was a meeting to discuss something we are all thinking about, the answer to the question everyone in America asks every day: How will this end? When will this end? In this telephone conference, leaders from other nations talked about the ending that most of us envision--the discovery of a safe and effective vaccine that can protect people around the world from the scourge of this coronavirus. I am not sure when that vaccine will be discovered--the sooner the better--but the big question we need to ask ourselves at this point is, Where will it be discovered, and what benefit will it provide for the United States? You see, there was one major nation that boycotted this international telephone conference about discovering a vaccine. It was the United States. President Trump decided not to participate with the leaders of nations from around the world in this global conversation about finding a safe and effective vaccine to fight coronavirus. I am not sure what his motive was. But we know that at least 94 other vaccines are being explored and worked on in nations around the world--in England, for example, and in Germany and so many other countries. They are looking for the same safe and effective vaccine as we in the United States are looking for. I have great faith and confidence in the men and women in medical research in the United States and the production facilities in our country, but I am not so proud or so vain as to believe that no other country could find that safe and effective vaccine. And if they did--and if they did--would we hesitate for a moment to turn to a country and say that the United States wants to be part of producing that vaccine and receiving that vaccine for the people who live here? Why would the President of the United States decide we are going to boycott that conference, stay away from it? Oh, I am sure he has a dozen reasons, but they don't seem very convincing to me. We should be at the table wherever there is a serious, credible effort to discover a vaccine. The United States should be participating. They were trying to raise $8 billion. That is a lot of money, but remember, we are dealing with an effort to rescue our economy from coronavirus, which is now in the range of $2.8 trillion. They are asking the participants to put in money. Norway said it would pledge $1 billion--Norway. The European Union said it would pledge $1 billion toward this global vaccine effort. The United States should have been at that table. We should be all in for any credible effort to find this vaccine as quickly as possible. I have introduced a resolution calling on the administration to reverse its position and to join in this effort. I want to commend Bill and Melinda Gates, who participated in that telephone conference and pledged millions of dollars of their own funds on behalf of the United States. Thank you to the Gates family for caring. Now, Mr. President, you should join them. This morning, the Republican leader came to the floor to talk about the problems and challenges that we face and the fact that there is another bill that is going to be offered publicly this week by Speaker Nancy Pelosi--the next in a succession of legislation that we have considered over the last several weeks. We have seen dramatic investments in unemployment insurance for a record number of unemployed people in this country. We have seen dramatic investments in the small businesses of America, to give them a fighting chance to reopen and to prosper in the future. I have joined in all of these on a bipartisan basis, and I will continue to. I don't know the specifics of Speaker Pelosi's proposal. Senator McConnell came to the floor and warned us not to think big and not to think about transformational things. Then, of course, he went back to his time-honored course about the question of liability. Senator McConnell has come to the floor repeatedly--repeatedly--and said that before he would consider another COVID-19 rescue bill, he would need to see what he calls a redline honored when it comes to immunity from lawsuits. What is being proposed by Speaker Pelosi when it comes to State and local governments is really an affirmation of what has been said by every one of us when it comes to our first responders, the police, the firefighters, the paramedics, the healthcare workers, and the teachers. What she says in the bill is that they have been hit and been hit hard at the State and local government levels by this COVID-19. She is proposing, as I understand it, a substantial commitment to help those units of government that have truly been hurt by this coronavirus. What she is asking for, really, is whether or not all of our speeches about healthcare workers, police, first responders, firefighters, and teachers are really credible and whether, in fact, we will come up with the resources that are needed. Senator McConnell has said that he will not support that legislation unless--as he calls it--his redline of liability immunity is honored. What he is saying is that he refuses to fund our police, firefighters, paramedics, and teachers unless we provide guaranteed business immunity for corporations. This is, sadly, an invitation for irresponsible corporations and businesses to cut corners when it comes to protecting workers and those customers and such who would be threatened by coronavirus. The McConnell redline threat would result in more people being infected by the coronavirus and more people getting sick. That is not what we want. There is a better way. We should be talking about how to do this properly. This afternoon there will be a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. One of the witnesses being called by the Republicans is a man named Kevin Smartt. He is the chief executive officer and president of Kwik Chek food stores in Bonham, TX. He is testifying on behalf of the National Association of Convenience Stores on this question of liability. I read his statement this morning in preparation for the hearing, and I commend it to my colleagues because I want them to listen carefully to what Mr. Smartt says he believes businesses need. Here is what he says. He talks about his own company Kwik Chek. Kwik Chek's first priority is the safety of our employees and customers. Beginning in early March, we adjusted our daily protocols to mitigate the spread of the virus. This was a challenge-- Listen to what Mr. Smartt says-- because the guidance provided by the CDC, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, as well as State and local governments, often conflicted with one another in addition to being vague and difficult to follow. Yet despite many uncertainties, including the constantly fluctuating public health guidelines, we began to adjust to the pandemic. Mr. Smartt is not saying that businesses don't have a responsibility here. He is accepting that responsibility to create a safe environment for workers and customers, but he is saying to us: When are you going to establish the standards? Why do you keep changing the standards? Here we are with Senator McConnell threatening to derail the next rescuebill for police, firefighters, and teachers across America, unless there is guaranteed immunity from lawsuits, and here is one of the leading companies, the No. 1 primary witness of the Republicans in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, saying to the Federal and governments: Establish standards, reasonable standards, for us to live up to when it comes to conducting business, and we will do it. I think that is a reasonable request by his business. Why aren't we doing it? Why hasn't OSHA established standards for the safety of workers? One of our other witnesses here is this gentleman who is the head of the United Food and Commercial Workers, Marc Perrone. I have a special fondness for this union because when I was a college kid, I spent 12 months working in a slaughterhouse in East St. Louis, IL, and it was this union that I belonged to back in those days It was tough, dirty, and dangerous work. I look to it as an important chapter in my life, when I saw how real people go to work every day and many times risk their safety and their health in doing it. Marc Perrone tells us there are literally thousands of his meat processing workers who have been affected by this virus and 95 of his members who have died as a result of it. What he is looking for--what we are looking for--is for those companies to establish standards of safety for their workers so that they can go back to work in this important business. Some are doing just that. I commend them. Some are working with the union to find safe ways to test their workers and to bring them back to a job site that is safe for them to work in. But they don't have a national standard to live up to. We haven't established a national standard, as we should. Whether through OSHA or through CDC, we ought to establish standards for businesses across this country to live up to. I believe many--Mr. Smartt with Kwik Chek and Marc Perrone with the United Food and Commercial Workers--would applaud that. They would say: At least we know what social distancing standards are to be used in the workplace. At least we know what protective equipment is required in the workplace to protect our employees. At least we know going into this exactly what the standards are that we need to live up to. Senator McConnell's approach is immunity from lawsuits; don't establish any standards and don't hold anybody to any standards at all. That is wrong. The net result of that is that more people would be in danger, more people would be infected, and more people would die. That is not the right approach. What we need to do is to make certain that when this is all said and done, we have a smart approach to this; that a business that is conscientious, cares for its customers, and cares for its workers has standards to live by and that they can meet reasonable standards that have been thought through from a public health viewpoint. It is no wonder that there is uncertainty when you look at the situation today. The Centers for Disease Control suggests voluntary standards, suggestions. The White House accepts some, publishes some, scoffs at others, and ignores others. There is just no clear message to businesses and people across America on what the standards of safety will be. So I would say that this hearing this afternoon is important to hear from Mr. Smartt and his willingness to look for standards that he can live by, and to hear from Marc Perrone about the dangers to his workers across the workplace. And don't believe for a minute that this caravan of lawsuits threat that we hear over and over tells the whole story. When you take a look at the lawsuits that have been filed, it is not just the so-called caravan of trial lawyers that are coming in and jumping on this. There are businesses suing businesses. There are lots of lawsuits that have little or nothing to do with personal injury. There are also lawsuits involving workers' compensation. Senator McConnell's suggestion is that we overturn the State laws that give workers the right to recover in the workplace if their injuries and or their health is impaired because of the COVID-19 virus. What a terrible outcome that would be to walk away from decades of established protection for workers in every State in the Union, for Senator McConnell's so-called redline threat when it comes to the COVID virus No. 4 bill that Speaker Pelosi is proposing. There is a reasonable answer here. We can say to these businesses across America: Join us in the fight. Let's stand together. You protect your workers, you protect your customers, and we will stand by you. We will establish a reasonable standard of conduct for you, which will protect you from frivolous lawsuits. But to take the approach by Senator McConnell, saying that we just are going to guarantee immunity from lawsuits, is exactly the wrong thing to do. We need a standard of safety that businesses can be proud of, that workers can respect, and that customers can count on so that they can go into places, do their business, buy the products, and know that there is a standard of good health that is being established for everyone. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. DURBIN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-12-pt1-PgS2360
| null | 604
|
formal
|
based
| null |
white supremacist
|
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, my home State of Texas is a great place to do business. We keep taxes, government spending, and regulations at a rational minimum in order to give people and businesses the freedom to pursue their dreams and prosper. Texas is consistently ranked on the list of the ``Best States for Business,'' the ``Best States to Start a Business,'' and the ``Best States for Female Entrepreneurs.'' According to the Small Business Administration, there are more than 2.6 million small businesses throughout the State, accounting for 99.8 percent of all Texas businesses. Those businesses employ nearly half of our State's workforce and account for the massive portion of our Texas economy. To say that the small businesses are an economic force in Texas would only paint half the picture. In big cities and in small towns alike, these businesses play a critical role in our communities--the locally owned restaurants and bars we visit, the gyms that are part of our regular routine, the dry cleaners, the pharmacies and the hardware stores we stop at when we run errands. But our small businesses aren't just employers or generators of sales tax. They are owned by our friends and our neighbors and are part of the very fabric of our community. Right now, they are under severe stress and in real jeopardy. The coronavirus has kept Texans at home and put our small businesses into serious financial trouble. When stay-at-home orders were put in place, many were forced to close their doors outright. Over the last several weeks, like many of my colleagues, I have held innumerable video conferences with chambers of commerce, small business owners, and others who have told me about the difficult decisions they have been forced to make in the wake of this virus. Without any demand, without an opportunity to sell their services or the food or other material they provide, they had to lay off employees or reduce their pay, and some were more concerned that they couldn't survive more than a few weeks because they still had to pay the rent and their overhead. Those struggles are familiar for businesses across the country, and that is why we, together--literally, unanimously, in the Senate--created the Paycheck Protection Program. This new loan program was designed to help America's small businesses and their employees manage these uncharted waters by providing 8 weeks of cash flow assistance to cover payroll and other business-related expenses. As we now know, it was so popular and so needed that the initial $350 billion we funded ran out in less than 2 weeks. From that batch of funding bill, Texas received more loans than any other State. Nearly 135,000 small businesses benefited from the Paycheck Protection Program--a sum total of28.5 billion. That is just from the first $350 billion we appropriated. It became obvious that there was more demand than supply, and so we had to then replenish the program with an initial $320 billion. So far, $670 billion has gone into the Paycheck Protection Program. These are astronomical numbers, but, obviously, the need was serious, and this appears to be meeting a very real need to keep these businesses afloat, along with their employees. Since our small businesses have gotten these funds, there is no shortage of stories about the positive impact they have had in my State, and I am sure each of us can tell similar stories. One of the recipients of a PPP loan is Sevy's Grill, which has been a favorite in Dallas for more than two decades. Like other restaurants throughout Texas, the stay-at-home order put them in a very tough financial spot, and the restaurant closed in March without an end in sight. Then a lifeline came in the form of the Paycheck Protection Program. A Facebook post from the restaurant read: ``We are blessed to be a part of the Paycheck Protection Program to help fund our comeback.'' They reopened at the end of April with a ``Valet-to-Go'' program, just in time to celebrate their 23rd anniversary last Friday and Mother's Day over the weekend. There is also another company called JuiceLand, an Austin-based company with locations in Dallas and Houston as well. Matt Shook is the founder and CEO. He says they were preparing for a busy spring, but instead of having their nearly three dozen locations full of customers, he had to close 25 stores and lay off 300 employees. He said: ``Every day it's like being at a poker table and getting bad hands every hand.'' But Matt was then dealt with a few good cards. JuiceLand received its Paycheck Protection Program loan. He began to reopen the stores and to hire back his employees. He said that this loan is going to be the difference in keeping his company afloat. The businesses that have received these loans were in danger of drowning until Congress, working together in a bipartisan way, threw them a lifeline. But now they are facing another risk that could bring a second wave of devastation and danger. Across the country, we are starting to see coronavirus-related litigation filed by the hundreds of cases--patients or their families suing doctors, students suing universities, employees and customers suing businesses--and this is just the beginning. As more States begin to restart their economies, we can expect a tidal wave of lawsuits to follow. And while there is and should absolutely be legal recourse for those with legitimate claims, there are serious concerns about the number of frivolous claims and nuisance lawsuits we are expecting to see. Imagine you are the owner of a small restaurant. Once stay-at-home orders were put in place, you did it the way you were asked, and you tried to keep your business going and your employees on payroll. You received a PPP loan, which helped you and your workforce survive until you could reopen your doors. And once that happened, you took every precaution and followed every guideline to protect your employees and your customers. You did your best to follow all government guidelines and regulations to a T. You stayed in close communication with your employees about their health and required anyone who was not feeling well to stay home. Your employees wore masks and gloves and had their temperatures checked at the start of each shift. You did your best to clean high-touch surfaces, maintained social distancing in the restaurant, and had hand sanitizer available for customers and employees. But then you find out you are being sued because someone claims that they contracted the virus at your place of business and they claimed that it happened because of your negligence and either you knew or you should have known. The legal nightmare you are about to enter could have your business filing for bankruptcy by the end of the year, even if the claim proved to be without merit. The expense and the time and the effort that we want people putting back into the business to help rebuild our economy--they are going to have to use that to defend a nuisance lawsuit and perhaps pay money just so they don't have to continue to pay a lawyer to defend them in court. Without action in this Congress, this is going to be a familiar story for small business owners, doctors, nurses, first responders--anyone and everyone who could potentially be blamed for another person contracting the virus. We are all familiar with those who are ready to jump at the opportunity to file a suit over this and similar matters, whether or not their case has legs. You can imagine the TV ads and the highway billboards we will see encouraging you to call some 1-800 number if you have been impacted by the coronavirus, only to be connected with a lawyer to file a lawsuit--again, regardless of merit. Let me be clear. As a recovering lawyer myself, I don't think all lawyers are bad, but we do know there are venal people who will take advantage of the opportunity. Again, let me just say I have no doubt there have been and will be legitimate lawsuits targeting bad actors. If there is willful or reckless disregard for the person affected, they should have every right to sue and be made whole. But we need to take action against these frivolous lawsuits tying up our courts, bankrupting our businesses, and discouraging our economy from reopening. This is not without some precedent. In the past, Congress has provided similar protections for businesses and workers who followed guidelines and acted in good faith. For example, there was the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, which provided legal protection for volunteers who worked at nonprofits. There was the Y2K Act of 1999, which gave protections to businesses if they followed government guidelines in good faith with regard to Y2K computer glitches. There was the Coverdell Teacher Protection Act of 2001, which gave protection to teachers and educators. It is simply time for Congress to once again exercise our constitutional authority to provide reasonable liability protections for employers and workers who are operating in good faith and following government and public health guidelines. There is no effort to allow bad behavior or protect those who are grossly negligent, period. In fact, if you think about it, providing a safe harbor for those businesses that follow public health and government guidelines will actually encourage them to do so, which will actually further protect the public and their employees. The types of liability limitations my colleagues and I are interested in providing would simply prevent frivolous and nuisance lawsuits from harassing our frontline healthcare workers and small businesses which were acting reasonably and complying in good faith with health guidelines. If you are a business owner debating whether to reopen once you are able, this lawsuit frenzy could be the deciding factor. You may just decide to throw in the towel, and we all would be losers, not the least of whom would be the employees who get their jobs from that employer. Would you risk a potential lawsuit that would tie you up in courts for months, if not years, on end and bankrupt your business even though you are prepared to follow health guidance? Well, I think many will not be inclined to open up under those circumstances. Without limiting liability for our small business owners and workers, our economic recovery will be stunted as a result of the fear of the negative impact of these frivolous lawsuits. That is the situation we need to address and prevent. Congress has taken unprecedented steps to strengthen our Nation's response to the coronavirus and minimize the economic fallout, and we have done that together. The tidal wave of lawsuits that could come and will come unless we act to limit that liability will undo every bit of progress we tried to make. We can't allow our doctors and nurses and first responders and small businesses to survive the pandemic, only to find themselves battling a second crisis in the courtroom, an existential crisis. In order to strengthen our response to this pandemic, we must protect those who are doing everything in their power to keep us safe while following the guidelines their government provides them, and we need to keep themfrom having to suffer and perhaps not survive this second pandemic that will be caused by opportunistic litigation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. CORNYN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-12-pt1-PgS2361
| null | 605
|
formal
|
government spending
| null |
racist
|
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, my home State of Texas is a great place to do business. We keep taxes, government spending, and regulations at a rational minimum in order to give people and businesses the freedom to pursue their dreams and prosper. Texas is consistently ranked on the list of the ``Best States for Business,'' the ``Best States to Start a Business,'' and the ``Best States for Female Entrepreneurs.'' According to the Small Business Administration, there are more than 2.6 million small businesses throughout the State, accounting for 99.8 percent of all Texas businesses. Those businesses employ nearly half of our State's workforce and account for the massive portion of our Texas economy. To say that the small businesses are an economic force in Texas would only paint half the picture. In big cities and in small towns alike, these businesses play a critical role in our communities--the locally owned restaurants and bars we visit, the gyms that are part of our regular routine, the dry cleaners, the pharmacies and the hardware stores we stop at when we run errands. But our small businesses aren't just employers or generators of sales tax. They are owned by our friends and our neighbors and are part of the very fabric of our community. Right now, they are under severe stress and in real jeopardy. The coronavirus has kept Texans at home and put our small businesses into serious financial trouble. When stay-at-home orders were put in place, many were forced to close their doors outright. Over the last several weeks, like many of my colleagues, I have held innumerable video conferences with chambers of commerce, small business owners, and others who have told me about the difficult decisions they have been forced to make in the wake of this virus. Without any demand, without an opportunity to sell their services or the food or other material they provide, they had to lay off employees or reduce their pay, and some were more concerned that they couldn't survive more than a few weeks because they still had to pay the rent and their overhead. Those struggles are familiar for businesses across the country, and that is why we, together--literally, unanimously, in the Senate--created the Paycheck Protection Program. This new loan program was designed to help America's small businesses and their employees manage these uncharted waters by providing 8 weeks of cash flow assistance to cover payroll and other business-related expenses. As we now know, it was so popular and so needed that the initial $350 billion we funded ran out in less than 2 weeks. From that batch of funding bill, Texas received more loans than any other State. Nearly 135,000 small businesses benefited from the Paycheck Protection Program--a sum total of28.5 billion. That is just from the first $350 billion we appropriated. It became obvious that there was more demand than supply, and so we had to then replenish the program with an initial $320 billion. So far, $670 billion has gone into the Paycheck Protection Program. These are astronomical numbers, but, obviously, the need was serious, and this appears to be meeting a very real need to keep these businesses afloat, along with their employees. Since our small businesses have gotten these funds, there is no shortage of stories about the positive impact they have had in my State, and I am sure each of us can tell similar stories. One of the recipients of a PPP loan is Sevy's Grill, which has been a favorite in Dallas for more than two decades. Like other restaurants throughout Texas, the stay-at-home order put them in a very tough financial spot, and the restaurant closed in March without an end in sight. Then a lifeline came in the form of the Paycheck Protection Program. A Facebook post from the restaurant read: ``We are blessed to be a part of the Paycheck Protection Program to help fund our comeback.'' They reopened at the end of April with a ``Valet-to-Go'' program, just in time to celebrate their 23rd anniversary last Friday and Mother's Day over the weekend. There is also another company called JuiceLand, an Austin-based company with locations in Dallas and Houston as well. Matt Shook is the founder and CEO. He says they were preparing for a busy spring, but instead of having their nearly three dozen locations full of customers, he had to close 25 stores and lay off 300 employees. He said: ``Every day it's like being at a poker table and getting bad hands every hand.'' But Matt was then dealt with a few good cards. JuiceLand received its Paycheck Protection Program loan. He began to reopen the stores and to hire back his employees. He said that this loan is going to be the difference in keeping his company afloat. The businesses that have received these loans were in danger of drowning until Congress, working together in a bipartisan way, threw them a lifeline. But now they are facing another risk that could bring a second wave of devastation and danger. Across the country, we are starting to see coronavirus-related litigation filed by the hundreds of cases--patients or their families suing doctors, students suing universities, employees and customers suing businesses--and this is just the beginning. As more States begin to restart their economies, we can expect a tidal wave of lawsuits to follow. And while there is and should absolutely be legal recourse for those with legitimate claims, there are serious concerns about the number of frivolous claims and nuisance lawsuits we are expecting to see. Imagine you are the owner of a small restaurant. Once stay-at-home orders were put in place, you did it the way you were asked, and you tried to keep your business going and your employees on payroll. You received a PPP loan, which helped you and your workforce survive until you could reopen your doors. And once that happened, you took every precaution and followed every guideline to protect your employees and your customers. You did your best to follow all government guidelines and regulations to a T. You stayed in close communication with your employees about their health and required anyone who was not feeling well to stay home. Your employees wore masks and gloves and had their temperatures checked at the start of each shift. You did your best to clean high-touch surfaces, maintained social distancing in the restaurant, and had hand sanitizer available for customers and employees. But then you find out you are being sued because someone claims that they contracted the virus at your place of business and they claimed that it happened because of your negligence and either you knew or you should have known. The legal nightmare you are about to enter could have your business filing for bankruptcy by the end of the year, even if the claim proved to be without merit. The expense and the time and the effort that we want people putting back into the business to help rebuild our economy--they are going to have to use that to defend a nuisance lawsuit and perhaps pay money just so they don't have to continue to pay a lawyer to defend them in court. Without action in this Congress, this is going to be a familiar story for small business owners, doctors, nurses, first responders--anyone and everyone who could potentially be blamed for another person contracting the virus. We are all familiar with those who are ready to jump at the opportunity to file a suit over this and similar matters, whether or not their case has legs. You can imagine the TV ads and the highway billboards we will see encouraging you to call some 1-800 number if you have been impacted by the coronavirus, only to be connected with a lawyer to file a lawsuit--again, regardless of merit. Let me be clear. As a recovering lawyer myself, I don't think all lawyers are bad, but we do know there are venal people who will take advantage of the opportunity. Again, let me just say I have no doubt there have been and will be legitimate lawsuits targeting bad actors. If there is willful or reckless disregard for the person affected, they should have every right to sue and be made whole. But we need to take action against these frivolous lawsuits tying up our courts, bankrupting our businesses, and discouraging our economy from reopening. This is not without some precedent. In the past, Congress has provided similar protections for businesses and workers who followed guidelines and acted in good faith. For example, there was the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, which provided legal protection for volunteers who worked at nonprofits. There was the Y2K Act of 1999, which gave protections to businesses if they followed government guidelines in good faith with regard to Y2K computer glitches. There was the Coverdell Teacher Protection Act of 2001, which gave protection to teachers and educators. It is simply time for Congress to once again exercise our constitutional authority to provide reasonable liability protections for employers and workers who are operating in good faith and following government and public health guidelines. There is no effort to allow bad behavior or protect those who are grossly negligent, period. In fact, if you think about it, providing a safe harbor for those businesses that follow public health and government guidelines will actually encourage them to do so, which will actually further protect the public and their employees. The types of liability limitations my colleagues and I are interested in providing would simply prevent frivolous and nuisance lawsuits from harassing our frontline healthcare workers and small businesses which were acting reasonably and complying in good faith with health guidelines. If you are a business owner debating whether to reopen once you are able, this lawsuit frenzy could be the deciding factor. You may just decide to throw in the towel, and we all would be losers, not the least of whom would be the employees who get their jobs from that employer. Would you risk a potential lawsuit that would tie you up in courts for months, if not years, on end and bankrupt your business even though you are prepared to follow health guidance? Well, I think many will not be inclined to open up under those circumstances. Without limiting liability for our small business owners and workers, our economic recovery will be stunted as a result of the fear of the negative impact of these frivolous lawsuits. That is the situation we need to address and prevent. Congress has taken unprecedented steps to strengthen our Nation's response to the coronavirus and minimize the economic fallout, and we have done that together. The tidal wave of lawsuits that could come and will come unless we act to limit that liability will undo every bit of progress we tried to make. We can't allow our doctors and nurses and first responders and small businesses to survive the pandemic, only to find themselves battling a second crisis in the courtroom, an existential crisis. In order to strengthen our response to this pandemic, we must protect those who are doing everything in their power to keep us safe while following the guidelines their government provides them, and we need to keep themfrom having to suffer and perhaps not survive this second pandemic that will be caused by opportunistic litigation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. CORNYN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-12-pt1-PgS2361
| null | 606
|
formal
|
based
| null |
white supremacist
|
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the Constitution of the United States contains a number of constitutional protections for the citizens of our great Republic. Among the many provisions that it contains, in addition to the structural safeguards of federalism and the separation of powers, separating out power along two axes--one vertical, which we call federalism, and the other horizontal, which we call the separation of powers--the Constitution also includes a number of substantive restrictions. These are things that the government may not do, and there are penalties attached to the government's doing those things. Among those many protections can be found the provisions of the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment reminds us that it is our right--a fundamental, inalienable right--as citizens in a free republic, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that any warrants issued under government authority have to be backed by probable cause, and any probable cause-based warrant has to include with particularity a description of the places and persons to be searched and to be seized. This is a tradition that reaches not just back a couple of centuries, but it reaches back much farther than that and has its origins not only in our own country but in our mother country, in the United Kingdom. By the time John Wilkes was serving in Parliament in the 1760s, there had been a long-established tradition and understanding. In fact, there had been a series of laws enacted to make sure that warrants were not abused and to make sure the rights of the English subjects would not be infringed. Among other things, there was an understanding and a set of laws in place that would make clear that those conducting searches and seizures would be subject to a warrant requirement. In other words, they would lose any immunity that they would otherwise have as government officials if they didn't obtain a warrant and if that warrant were not valid. In 1763, the home of John Wilkes was searched aggressively. John Wilkes, while serving as a Member of Parliament, had become critical of the administration of King George, and he had participated in the publication of a weekly circular known as the North Briton. Although the North Briton was not one likely to engage in excessive, fawning praise of the reigning Monarch, it wasn't until the publication of North Briton No. 45 in 1763 that the administration of King George decided to go after John Wilkes. His home was searched, and it was searched pursuant to a general warrant. A general warrant was something that basically said, in that instance: Find out who had anything to do with the authorship and publication of North Briton No. 45. You see, North Briton No. 45 accused, among other things, King George and those who served in his government of laying aggressive taxes on the people--taxes that they knew couldn't adequately be enforced or collected without intrusive measures that would involve kicking open people's doors, rummaging through their drawers, and doing things that couldn't be justified for the use of a warrant laid out with particularity. John Wilkes, in that circumstance, was arrested within a matter of a few weeks. He won his freedom, albeit on something of a technicality at the moment. He asserted parliamentary privilege and was released. Eventually, after becoming subjected to multiple searches using general warrants, Wilkes sued Lord Halifax and those who participated in the searches and seizures in question. He was able to obtain a large award, a large judgment consisting of money damages. John Wilkes, at the time, became famous, really, on both sides of the Atlantic. The name of John Wilkes was celebrated in taverns, saloons, and other public places in England and in the nascent United States of America, the colonies in North America that would later become the world's greatest Republic. John Wilkes' example was something that helped to solidify a long-standing legal tradition, one that would in time make its way into our Constitution through the Fourth Amendment. We have to remember that government is simply force. It is the organized collective official use of force. When John Wilkes and those who worked with him on the North Briton, culminating in North Briton No. 45, criticized the King too much, questioned excessively, in their judgment, the collection and imposition of taxes, the administration of King George decided they had gone too far and that it was time for John Wilkes to pay a price. Fortunately for John Wilkes and for people on both sides of the Atlantic, John Wilkes emerged victoriously. Today, we don't have general warrants, at least nothing masquerading under that title in the United States. The fact that we have a First Amendment is a test to his vigorous defense of the rights of English subjects. What we do have is something that ought to concern every American. We have the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which we know has been abused, and we have known for a long time is ripe for opportunities for abuse among government officials. In fact, what we have seen is that the current President of the United States has, himself, become the target of abuse under FISA. Back in 2016 when this started being abused and when we saw the emergence of things like Operation Crossfire Hurricane, you had the campaign of a man who would become the 45th President of the United States targeted and singled out, quite unfairly, using these practices--these procedures that were designed originally for use in detecting and thwarting the efforts of agents of foreign powers. As the name of the law implies, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is not something that is intended to go after American citizens. It is certainly not something that is intended to be used as a tool for bullying a Presidential candidate. Now that it has been used to bully and incorrectly surveil the 45th President of the United States, we need to do something about it. That is what the Lee-Leahy amendment does. First, for a bit of background on this particular law, we have three provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that expired on March 15, 2020, just a few weeks ago. We have one provision known as section 215, another provision known as lone wolf, and another provision known as roving wiretaps. On March 16, the Senate passed a bill to reauthorize those provisions through May 30, 2020, which would give us a few weeks to debate and discuss reforms that need to happen under FISA. In order to pass this bill, the Senate entered into a unanimous consent agreement for votes on three amendments to the Pelosi-Nadler-Schiff bill passed by the House of Representatives a few weeks ago. One of those amendments is the one that I referred to a moment ago, the Lee-Leahy amendment, introduced by myself and Senator Leahy from Vermont. Unfortunately, however, the House of Representatives never passed that short-term extension measure, so that the three authorities that I mentioned--lone wolf, roving wiretaps, and 215--have been expired now for almost 2 months. Now, this is not for lack of trying on the part of us--the part of those of us who really want to see meaningful FISA reform. In fact, just a few days before these authorities were set to expire, I came down here to the Senate floor and I asked a series of unanimous consent requests to consider the House-passed reauthorization bill with a handful of relevant and, I believe, very necessary amendments. Unfortunately, my friend, a distinguished colleague, Senator Burr, objected. The Department of Justice Inspector General Horowitz's December report on Crossfire Hurricane proved what many of us reformers have been saying now for years. In my case, I have been working on this and trying to call out the dangers inherent in provisions of FISA now for a decade. But what the Horowitz report in December demonstrated was that FISA really is ripe for opportunities for abuse. Inspector General Horowitz not only found evidence that the FISA process was abused to target President Trump's campaign. He found evidence that basic procedures meant to protect the rights of U.S. persons--that is to say, U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents of the United States--were not being followed. And so, just as we see that John Wilkes, through his publication of North Briton No. 45, solidified a preexisting set of rights available to all English subjects, we now see that President No. 45, Donald John Trump, has the opportunity to strengthen this right protected in our Fourth Amendment, harkening back to the example of John Wilkes in the publication of North Briton No. 45. My amendment with Senator Leahy would make reforms to applications for surveillance across the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, including both section 215, the authority that recently expired, and under title I, which happens to be the authority that was abused in order to surveil President Trump's campaign. First, the amendment would strengthen the role of the friend-of-the-court provisions--the amicus curiae provisions that we adopted in 2015 in connection with the USA FREEDOM Act, which was introduced by Senator Leahy and myself back then. It would strength these amicus curiae or friend-of-the-court provisions and make them applicable in circumstances in which there are sensitivities inherently in play. Now, these amici curiae, or friends of the court, are people who, as contemplated under the proposed legislation, would primarily be experts and would have at least some knowledge or expertise of FISA and of privacy, civil liberties, secure communications, and other fields that are important to the FISA Court. They would also be people who would have clearance to review matters of concern from a national security standpoint. These amici are essential because, you see, the FISA Court is a secret court which, by its very design, operates on an ex parte basis, meaning without the presence of opposing counsel. You have government counsel and the judges themselves, and that is it. The friend-of-the-court provisions, the amici curiae I am describing, provide the opportunity for the FISA Court to hear from a fresh perspective--a neutral, trusted perspective--one that comes with some expertise in national security clearance but without presenting the threat to upending the national security investigations entrusted to the FISA Court. So that is why the amici are so necessary and so important. In the absence of opposing counsel, we have to strengthen the provisions that provide for these amici to ensure that there is some advocate somewhere in front of the court who is in a position to say: Wait a minute. What happens if we do this? Wait a minute. Is this really what the law authorizes? Wait a minute. Isn't there a constitutional concern implicated here, especially where they are dealing with the rights of American citizens. The December 2019 inspector general report on the surveillance of President Trump's campaign staffer Carter Page demonstrates the significant need for an outside expert legal advocate, especially when a FISA application involves a sensitive investigative matter, like the surveillance of a candidate for public office or an elected official or that official's staff. If the Lee-Leahy amendment were in statute, it would have required the FISA Court to appoint an amicus in the Carter Page case. If an amicus had been appointed in that case, would she have raised some of the issues that we now see regarding the credibility of the Steele dossier? Well, it is quite possible. In fact, I think it is quite likely. I think it is almost unimaginable that had there been an amicus curiae present in the FISA Court at that moment, somebody--likely, the amicus--would have said: Wait a minute. We have got a problem. Wait a minute. You have got evidence that is unreliable. Wait a minute. You have got huge credibility problems with the evidence that is backing up what you are asking for. Our amendment would require the FISA Court to appoint an amicus when an application involves ``sensitive investigative matter,'' such as the surveillance of candidates and elected officials or their staff, political organizations, religious organizations, prominent individuals within those organizations, and domestic news media. One of the arguments made by those who oppose FISA reform is that the appointment of an amicus would somehow slow down the surveillance and the FISA order application process, which, so the argument goes, could then harm our national security in those instances where there could be an imminent attack. Anytime this argument is made, it is important for the American people to listen and listen carefully. It is an important argument. It is not one that we want to treat lightly. At the same time, we have to remember the immense harm that has been inflicted, not only on our own society but elsewhere, when people simply suggest: Don't worry about this; it is a matter of national security. Don't worry about it; we have the experts covering it. Don't worry about it; your liberty is not to concern you. We know the risk. We know that we have to ask the difficult questions, and that is what we are doing here. In any event, the argument doesn't work here. The argument falls apart under its own weight here, you see, because our amendment allows for the FISA Court to have flexibility. In fact, the FISA Court, under the amendment, may decline to appoint an amicus if the court concludes it would be inappropriate to do so under the circumstances. All it has to do is make that finding. Is this too great an intrusion on the ability of the U.S. Government to collect information on U.S. citizens? I think not, especially as here we are dealing with this sensitive investigative matter, one involving an elected official or a candidate for elected office or religious officials or media organizations. We know in our hearts that these are areas where our foreign intelligence surveillance authority ought to give way, ought to at least recognize the rights of individual Americans. Our amendment also provides the amicus with more access to information regarding applications and requires the government to make available the supporting documentation underlying assertions made in applications if requested by the amicus or by the FISA Court itself. Now, this information is, to be sure, required by the FBI's internal operating procedures, including its so-called Woods procedures, to be maintained in a series of documents known collectively as the Woods files. But the FBI's failure to correctly maintain the supporting documentation or, in some cases, even to assemble it in the first place--the documentation underlying these FISA applications to surveil U.S. persons, that is--was itself the subject of the inspector general's most recent memorandum to FBI Director Christopher Wray. That memorandum proved, among other things, that the government's failure to provide all of the evidence, especially evidence that undermined the government's case before the FISA Court, when considering the application to surveil Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, was not an isolated accident. Quite to the contrary, after sampling 29 FBI applications for FISA surveillance of U.S. persons, the inspector general, Mr. Horowitz, found an average of 20 errors per application, with most applications having either missing or inadequate Woods files, leading the inspector general to conclude: ``We do not have confidence that the FBI has executed its Woods procedures in compliance with FBI policy.'' This is absolutely unacceptable in any free republic, but especially in ours, with the existence of the Fourth Amendment. We are not talking about the failure to create or maintain some obsolete piece of paperwork just for the sake of having it. No, no, no, this is much more than that. And we are not talking here about exculpatory evidence being withheld as to suspected foreign terrorists. These are applications to surveil U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, who themselves have constitutional rights and also have an expectation that their government will not secretly spy on them, in violation of that which is rightfully theirs under the Constitution of the United States. So you can't look at this and credibly, reliably, say: It is OK. Let the FBI take care of it. The FBI is working on it. We have been hearing that for years. I have been hearing that for 10 years--the entire decade that I have been at this business. And what has happened? Well, what has happened is that we have seen time and again that there have been abuses of the very sort that many of us have been predicting for a long time would inevitably and repeatedly arise in the absence of reform. This doesn't require us to undertake a dismal view of humanity. No, it is not that at all. It is simply that government is best understood as the organized, official collective use of force, officially sanctioned as part of a government. And, as James Madison explained in Federalist 51, if men were angels we wouldn't need government. If we had access to angels to run our government, we wouldn't need rules about government. But we are not angels, and we don't have access to them. So, instead, we have to rely on humans. Humans are flawed. They make mistakes, and they also sometimes decide for nefarious or political or other reasons to flout the law--hence the need for the night watchman, hence the need for rules that restricts their ability to do that. So I find it entirely unsatisfactory when people say: Just let the FBI deal with this, because, first of all, they haven't dealt with it. They haven't dealt with it even as abuses have become more and more known under various provisions of FISA and even as we are still coming to terms with language that was adopted nearly two decades ago that itself was overly broad at the time and has been abused since then. No, we are not going to just trust that an organization that is able to operate entirely in secret, with the benefit of protection of national security laws, with the benefit of over-classification of documents--we are not simply going to assume lightly that they are going to fix it, because they haven't and because they won't and because they don't want to. I understand why they might not want to. All of us can appreciate that when we do a job, if somebody else adds requirements to that job, we might be naturally resistant to it. But that doesn't mean that we don't need to do it here. That doesn't mean that our oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States doesn't compel us to do so here. We know that the FBI is not going to fix it because the FBI has in the past adopted procedures designed to prevent this kind of manipulation, this kind of chicanery from arising, including, most notably, the Woods procedures. Yet we know that the Woods procedures have been openly flouted. So can we walk away from this and pretend that the 45th President of the United States didn't have his own rights abused, his own campaign surveilled abusively by the FBI itself? No, we can't. And I don't know anyone--Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative or libertarian or something else--who could look at that and say: Yes, that makes a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense that we should just leave unfettered, unreviewable discretion in the hands of those who are able to operate entirely in secret. The Lee-Leahy amendment would require that the government turn over to the FISA Court any and all material information in its position, including information that might undermine its case as part of the FISA application. As I said earlier, this information would be made available to the amicus curiae upon request. As an added protection, our amendment would require any Federal officer filing an application for electronic surveillance or physical search under FISA to certify that the officer has collected and reviewed, for accuracy and for completeness, supporting documentation for each factual assertion contained in the application. If we are going to require people to go to the FISA Court at all to get an order, if we are going to call it a court, ought we not require that such evidence be assembled and at least be made available to those whose job it is to make sure that the job is actually being done? The Lee-Leahy amendment also requires these officers to certify in each application that they have employed accuracy procedures put in place by the Attorney General and the FISA Court to confirm this certification before issuing an order. Finally, the Lee-Leahy amendment requires the Department of Justice inspector general to file an annual report regarding the accuracy of FISA applications and the Department of Justice's compliance with its requirements to disclose any and all material evidence that might undermine their case. Now, while I have a lot of ideas for reform, many of which are included in the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act that Senator Leahy and I introduced a couple of months ago, we were limited in this circumstance for our purposes to just one amendment to the Pelosi-Nadler-Schiff bill. That is this amendment, the one that I have been describing, the Lee-Leahy amendment. We believe that our amendment is a very measured approach to enacting those reforms that we believe to be most essential to protecting the rights and the privacy of Americans from a system that, by its very nature and, in some instances, by design, is ripe with opportunities for abuse. It is not perfect, but it will go a long way, if we pass it, toward forestalling this kind of abuse. We have to remember that although we live in the greatest Republic ever known to human beings and although our rights are, by and large, respected in this country, we are by no means immune to the type of abuse that can take hold in any system of government, especially a system of government with a whole lot of resources at its disposal to gather information, including efforts to gather information on that government's own citizenry. If we remember, about 45 years ago, there was a committee put together, headed by a Senator from Idaho named Frank Church, that looked at abuses of telephone surveillance by the government and concluded that in basically every administration dating back to the rise of the common usage of the telephone, our intelligence-gatheringresources within the United States had been utilized to engage in what was essentially political espionage. Since the late 1970s when the Church Committee issued its report, we have had exponential growth in the ability of government and the ability of everyone else, for that matter, to obtain and process data and information. In most ways, it has been a real blessing. It is a great thing. It is also important for us to keep in mind the extent to which our papers and effects are no longer found exclusively within physical file cabinet files within someone's home or office. In many instances, they can be found elsewhere in electronic form. Our security and our liberty need not and ought never to be viewed as irreconcilably at odds with each other. Many civil liberties and privacy experts joined together in an effort known as the PCLOB a few years ago--the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board--and concluded a few years ago that our privacy and our liberty are not at odds with each other. In fact, our privacy is part of our liberty. We are not truly free unless our personal effects and our private information can belong to us and not simply be open game for the government. It is sad and tragic that in order for this to come to light, it took an assault on freedom so bold and so shameless as to loop in the President of the United States. With this and other revelations that have come to light in recent days and weeks and months and over the last few years, we can't forget that these entities are still run by human beings with their own political views, with their own agendas. And in some cases, unfortunately--rare cases, I hope--people who are charged with protecting the people and their liberty may in some cases be inclined to be at odds with it. It is unfortunate that the 45th President of the United States has had, quite tragically, to become the victim of this. But I ask the question, what if your information were on the line? What if you had been targeted--maybe for political reasons, maybe for reasons that had nothing to do with politics, maybe for reasons that just had to deal with a personal vendetta someone had against any American. It is far less likely that the abuse would ever have come to light. In this circumstance, it did come to light. We can't ignore it, nor can we pretend that it couldn't happen to any one of us--and I don't mean as Members of the U.S. Senate; I just mean as Americans. In fact, each and every one of us is less capable of standing up to this and less likely to discover the abuse in the first instance. Not all of us happen to be the President of the United States. I am grateful that President Donald J. Trump has been willing to speak truth to power and has been willing to call out the flagrant abuse of FISA and of other procedures within the government. It is our obligation, it is our solemn duty, and it is my pleasure to do something about it. The Lee-Leahy amendment does something about it, and I invite all of my colleagues to join me in supporting it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. LEE
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-12-pt1-PgS2366
| null | 607
|
formal
|
terrorists
| null |
Islamophobic
|
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the Constitution of the United States contains a number of constitutional protections for the citizens of our great Republic. Among the many provisions that it contains, in addition to the structural safeguards of federalism and the separation of powers, separating out power along two axes--one vertical, which we call federalism, and the other horizontal, which we call the separation of powers--the Constitution also includes a number of substantive restrictions. These are things that the government may not do, and there are penalties attached to the government's doing those things. Among those many protections can be found the provisions of the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment reminds us that it is our right--a fundamental, inalienable right--as citizens in a free republic, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that any warrants issued under government authority have to be backed by probable cause, and any probable cause-based warrant has to include with particularity a description of the places and persons to be searched and to be seized. This is a tradition that reaches not just back a couple of centuries, but it reaches back much farther than that and has its origins not only in our own country but in our mother country, in the United Kingdom. By the time John Wilkes was serving in Parliament in the 1760s, there had been a long-established tradition and understanding. In fact, there had been a series of laws enacted to make sure that warrants were not abused and to make sure the rights of the English subjects would not be infringed. Among other things, there was an understanding and a set of laws in place that would make clear that those conducting searches and seizures would be subject to a warrant requirement. In other words, they would lose any immunity that they would otherwise have as government officials if they didn't obtain a warrant and if that warrant were not valid. In 1763, the home of John Wilkes was searched aggressively. John Wilkes, while serving as a Member of Parliament, had become critical of the administration of King George, and he had participated in the publication of a weekly circular known as the North Briton. Although the North Briton was not one likely to engage in excessive, fawning praise of the reigning Monarch, it wasn't until the publication of North Briton No. 45 in 1763 that the administration of King George decided to go after John Wilkes. His home was searched, and it was searched pursuant to a general warrant. A general warrant was something that basically said, in that instance: Find out who had anything to do with the authorship and publication of North Briton No. 45. You see, North Briton No. 45 accused, among other things, King George and those who served in his government of laying aggressive taxes on the people--taxes that they knew couldn't adequately be enforced or collected without intrusive measures that would involve kicking open people's doors, rummaging through their drawers, and doing things that couldn't be justified for the use of a warrant laid out with particularity. John Wilkes, in that circumstance, was arrested within a matter of a few weeks. He won his freedom, albeit on something of a technicality at the moment. He asserted parliamentary privilege and was released. Eventually, after becoming subjected to multiple searches using general warrants, Wilkes sued Lord Halifax and those who participated in the searches and seizures in question. He was able to obtain a large award, a large judgment consisting of money damages. John Wilkes, at the time, became famous, really, on both sides of the Atlantic. The name of John Wilkes was celebrated in taverns, saloons, and other public places in England and in the nascent United States of America, the colonies in North America that would later become the world's greatest Republic. John Wilkes' example was something that helped to solidify a long-standing legal tradition, one that would in time make its way into our Constitution through the Fourth Amendment. We have to remember that government is simply force. It is the organized collective official use of force. When John Wilkes and those who worked with him on the North Briton, culminating in North Briton No. 45, criticized the King too much, questioned excessively, in their judgment, the collection and imposition of taxes, the administration of King George decided they had gone too far and that it was time for John Wilkes to pay a price. Fortunately for John Wilkes and for people on both sides of the Atlantic, John Wilkes emerged victoriously. Today, we don't have general warrants, at least nothing masquerading under that title in the United States. The fact that we have a First Amendment is a test to his vigorous defense of the rights of English subjects. What we do have is something that ought to concern every American. We have the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which we know has been abused, and we have known for a long time is ripe for opportunities for abuse among government officials. In fact, what we have seen is that the current President of the United States has, himself, become the target of abuse under FISA. Back in 2016 when this started being abused and when we saw the emergence of things like Operation Crossfire Hurricane, you had the campaign of a man who would become the 45th President of the United States targeted and singled out, quite unfairly, using these practices--these procedures that were designed originally for use in detecting and thwarting the efforts of agents of foreign powers. As the name of the law implies, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is not something that is intended to go after American citizens. It is certainly not something that is intended to be used as a tool for bullying a Presidential candidate. Now that it has been used to bully and incorrectly surveil the 45th President of the United States, we need to do something about it. That is what the Lee-Leahy amendment does. First, for a bit of background on this particular law, we have three provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that expired on March 15, 2020, just a few weeks ago. We have one provision known as section 215, another provision known as lone wolf, and another provision known as roving wiretaps. On March 16, the Senate passed a bill to reauthorize those provisions through May 30, 2020, which would give us a few weeks to debate and discuss reforms that need to happen under FISA. In order to pass this bill, the Senate entered into a unanimous consent agreement for votes on three amendments to the Pelosi-Nadler-Schiff bill passed by the House of Representatives a few weeks ago. One of those amendments is the one that I referred to a moment ago, the Lee-Leahy amendment, introduced by myself and Senator Leahy from Vermont. Unfortunately, however, the House of Representatives never passed that short-term extension measure, so that the three authorities that I mentioned--lone wolf, roving wiretaps, and 215--have been expired now for almost 2 months. Now, this is not for lack of trying on the part of us--the part of those of us who really want to see meaningful FISA reform. In fact, just a few days before these authorities were set to expire, I came down here to the Senate floor and I asked a series of unanimous consent requests to consider the House-passed reauthorization bill with a handful of relevant and, I believe, very necessary amendments. Unfortunately, my friend, a distinguished colleague, Senator Burr, objected. The Department of Justice Inspector General Horowitz's December report on Crossfire Hurricane proved what many of us reformers have been saying now for years. In my case, I have been working on this and trying to call out the dangers inherent in provisions of FISA now for a decade. But what the Horowitz report in December demonstrated was that FISA really is ripe for opportunities for abuse. Inspector General Horowitz not only found evidence that the FISA process was abused to target President Trump's campaign. He found evidence that basic procedures meant to protect the rights of U.S. persons--that is to say, U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents of the United States--were not being followed. And so, just as we see that John Wilkes, through his publication of North Briton No. 45, solidified a preexisting set of rights available to all English subjects, we now see that President No. 45, Donald John Trump, has the opportunity to strengthen this right protected in our Fourth Amendment, harkening back to the example of John Wilkes in the publication of North Briton No. 45. My amendment with Senator Leahy would make reforms to applications for surveillance across the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, including both section 215, the authority that recently expired, and under title I, which happens to be the authority that was abused in order to surveil President Trump's campaign. First, the amendment would strengthen the role of the friend-of-the-court provisions--the amicus curiae provisions that we adopted in 2015 in connection with the USA FREEDOM Act, which was introduced by Senator Leahy and myself back then. It would strength these amicus curiae or friend-of-the-court provisions and make them applicable in circumstances in which there are sensitivities inherently in play. Now, these amici curiae, or friends of the court, are people who, as contemplated under the proposed legislation, would primarily be experts and would have at least some knowledge or expertise of FISA and of privacy, civil liberties, secure communications, and other fields that are important to the FISA Court. They would also be people who would have clearance to review matters of concern from a national security standpoint. These amici are essential because, you see, the FISA Court is a secret court which, by its very design, operates on an ex parte basis, meaning without the presence of opposing counsel. You have government counsel and the judges themselves, and that is it. The friend-of-the-court provisions, the amici curiae I am describing, provide the opportunity for the FISA Court to hear from a fresh perspective--a neutral, trusted perspective--one that comes with some expertise in national security clearance but without presenting the threat to upending the national security investigations entrusted to the FISA Court. So that is why the amici are so necessary and so important. In the absence of opposing counsel, we have to strengthen the provisions that provide for these amici to ensure that there is some advocate somewhere in front of the court who is in a position to say: Wait a minute. What happens if we do this? Wait a minute. Is this really what the law authorizes? Wait a minute. Isn't there a constitutional concern implicated here, especially where they are dealing with the rights of American citizens. The December 2019 inspector general report on the surveillance of President Trump's campaign staffer Carter Page demonstrates the significant need for an outside expert legal advocate, especially when a FISA application involves a sensitive investigative matter, like the surveillance of a candidate for public office or an elected official or that official's staff. If the Lee-Leahy amendment were in statute, it would have required the FISA Court to appoint an amicus in the Carter Page case. If an amicus had been appointed in that case, would she have raised some of the issues that we now see regarding the credibility of the Steele dossier? Well, it is quite possible. In fact, I think it is quite likely. I think it is almost unimaginable that had there been an amicus curiae present in the FISA Court at that moment, somebody--likely, the amicus--would have said: Wait a minute. We have got a problem. Wait a minute. You have got evidence that is unreliable. Wait a minute. You have got huge credibility problems with the evidence that is backing up what you are asking for. Our amendment would require the FISA Court to appoint an amicus when an application involves ``sensitive investigative matter,'' such as the surveillance of candidates and elected officials or their staff, political organizations, religious organizations, prominent individuals within those organizations, and domestic news media. One of the arguments made by those who oppose FISA reform is that the appointment of an amicus would somehow slow down the surveillance and the FISA order application process, which, so the argument goes, could then harm our national security in those instances where there could be an imminent attack. Anytime this argument is made, it is important for the American people to listen and listen carefully. It is an important argument. It is not one that we want to treat lightly. At the same time, we have to remember the immense harm that has been inflicted, not only on our own society but elsewhere, when people simply suggest: Don't worry about this; it is a matter of national security. Don't worry about it; we have the experts covering it. Don't worry about it; your liberty is not to concern you. We know the risk. We know that we have to ask the difficult questions, and that is what we are doing here. In any event, the argument doesn't work here. The argument falls apart under its own weight here, you see, because our amendment allows for the FISA Court to have flexibility. In fact, the FISA Court, under the amendment, may decline to appoint an amicus if the court concludes it would be inappropriate to do so under the circumstances. All it has to do is make that finding. Is this too great an intrusion on the ability of the U.S. Government to collect information on U.S. citizens? I think not, especially as here we are dealing with this sensitive investigative matter, one involving an elected official or a candidate for elected office or religious officials or media organizations. We know in our hearts that these are areas where our foreign intelligence surveillance authority ought to give way, ought to at least recognize the rights of individual Americans. Our amendment also provides the amicus with more access to information regarding applications and requires the government to make available the supporting documentation underlying assertions made in applications if requested by the amicus or by the FISA Court itself. Now, this information is, to be sure, required by the FBI's internal operating procedures, including its so-called Woods procedures, to be maintained in a series of documents known collectively as the Woods files. But the FBI's failure to correctly maintain the supporting documentation or, in some cases, even to assemble it in the first place--the documentation underlying these FISA applications to surveil U.S. persons, that is--was itself the subject of the inspector general's most recent memorandum to FBI Director Christopher Wray. That memorandum proved, among other things, that the government's failure to provide all of the evidence, especially evidence that undermined the government's case before the FISA Court, when considering the application to surveil Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, was not an isolated accident. Quite to the contrary, after sampling 29 FBI applications for FISA surveillance of U.S. persons, the inspector general, Mr. Horowitz, found an average of 20 errors per application, with most applications having either missing or inadequate Woods files, leading the inspector general to conclude: ``We do not have confidence that the FBI has executed its Woods procedures in compliance with FBI policy.'' This is absolutely unacceptable in any free republic, but especially in ours, with the existence of the Fourth Amendment. We are not talking about the failure to create or maintain some obsolete piece of paperwork just for the sake of having it. No, no, no, this is much more than that. And we are not talking here about exculpatory evidence being withheld as to suspected foreign terrorists. These are applications to surveil U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, who themselves have constitutional rights and also have an expectation that their government will not secretly spy on them, in violation of that which is rightfully theirs under the Constitution of the United States. So you can't look at this and credibly, reliably, say: It is OK. Let the FBI take care of it. The FBI is working on it. We have been hearing that for years. I have been hearing that for 10 years--the entire decade that I have been at this business. And what has happened? Well, what has happened is that we have seen time and again that there have been abuses of the very sort that many of us have been predicting for a long time would inevitably and repeatedly arise in the absence of reform. This doesn't require us to undertake a dismal view of humanity. No, it is not that at all. It is simply that government is best understood as the organized, official collective use of force, officially sanctioned as part of a government. And, as James Madison explained in Federalist 51, if men were angels we wouldn't need government. If we had access to angels to run our government, we wouldn't need rules about government. But we are not angels, and we don't have access to them. So, instead, we have to rely on humans. Humans are flawed. They make mistakes, and they also sometimes decide for nefarious or political or other reasons to flout the law--hence the need for the night watchman, hence the need for rules that restricts their ability to do that. So I find it entirely unsatisfactory when people say: Just let the FBI deal with this, because, first of all, they haven't dealt with it. They haven't dealt with it even as abuses have become more and more known under various provisions of FISA and even as we are still coming to terms with language that was adopted nearly two decades ago that itself was overly broad at the time and has been abused since then. No, we are not going to just trust that an organization that is able to operate entirely in secret, with the benefit of protection of national security laws, with the benefit of over-classification of documents--we are not simply going to assume lightly that they are going to fix it, because they haven't and because they won't and because they don't want to. I understand why they might not want to. All of us can appreciate that when we do a job, if somebody else adds requirements to that job, we might be naturally resistant to it. But that doesn't mean that we don't need to do it here. That doesn't mean that our oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States doesn't compel us to do so here. We know that the FBI is not going to fix it because the FBI has in the past adopted procedures designed to prevent this kind of manipulation, this kind of chicanery from arising, including, most notably, the Woods procedures. Yet we know that the Woods procedures have been openly flouted. So can we walk away from this and pretend that the 45th President of the United States didn't have his own rights abused, his own campaign surveilled abusively by the FBI itself? No, we can't. And I don't know anyone--Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative or libertarian or something else--who could look at that and say: Yes, that makes a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense that we should just leave unfettered, unreviewable discretion in the hands of those who are able to operate entirely in secret. The Lee-Leahy amendment would require that the government turn over to the FISA Court any and all material information in its position, including information that might undermine its case as part of the FISA application. As I said earlier, this information would be made available to the amicus curiae upon request. As an added protection, our amendment would require any Federal officer filing an application for electronic surveillance or physical search under FISA to certify that the officer has collected and reviewed, for accuracy and for completeness, supporting documentation for each factual assertion contained in the application. If we are going to require people to go to the FISA Court at all to get an order, if we are going to call it a court, ought we not require that such evidence be assembled and at least be made available to those whose job it is to make sure that the job is actually being done? The Lee-Leahy amendment also requires these officers to certify in each application that they have employed accuracy procedures put in place by the Attorney General and the FISA Court to confirm this certification before issuing an order. Finally, the Lee-Leahy amendment requires the Department of Justice inspector general to file an annual report regarding the accuracy of FISA applications and the Department of Justice's compliance with its requirements to disclose any and all material evidence that might undermine their case. Now, while I have a lot of ideas for reform, many of which are included in the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act that Senator Leahy and I introduced a couple of months ago, we were limited in this circumstance for our purposes to just one amendment to the Pelosi-Nadler-Schiff bill. That is this amendment, the one that I have been describing, the Lee-Leahy amendment. We believe that our amendment is a very measured approach to enacting those reforms that we believe to be most essential to protecting the rights and the privacy of Americans from a system that, by its very nature and, in some instances, by design, is ripe with opportunities for abuse. It is not perfect, but it will go a long way, if we pass it, toward forestalling this kind of abuse. We have to remember that although we live in the greatest Republic ever known to human beings and although our rights are, by and large, respected in this country, we are by no means immune to the type of abuse that can take hold in any system of government, especially a system of government with a whole lot of resources at its disposal to gather information, including efforts to gather information on that government's own citizenry. If we remember, about 45 years ago, there was a committee put together, headed by a Senator from Idaho named Frank Church, that looked at abuses of telephone surveillance by the government and concluded that in basically every administration dating back to the rise of the common usage of the telephone, our intelligence-gatheringresources within the United States had been utilized to engage in what was essentially political espionage. Since the late 1970s when the Church Committee issued its report, we have had exponential growth in the ability of government and the ability of everyone else, for that matter, to obtain and process data and information. In most ways, it has been a real blessing. It is a great thing. It is also important for us to keep in mind the extent to which our papers and effects are no longer found exclusively within physical file cabinet files within someone's home or office. In many instances, they can be found elsewhere in electronic form. Our security and our liberty need not and ought never to be viewed as irreconcilably at odds with each other. Many civil liberties and privacy experts joined together in an effort known as the PCLOB a few years ago--the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board--and concluded a few years ago that our privacy and our liberty are not at odds with each other. In fact, our privacy is part of our liberty. We are not truly free unless our personal effects and our private information can belong to us and not simply be open game for the government. It is sad and tragic that in order for this to come to light, it took an assault on freedom so bold and so shameless as to loop in the President of the United States. With this and other revelations that have come to light in recent days and weeks and months and over the last few years, we can't forget that these entities are still run by human beings with their own political views, with their own agendas. And in some cases, unfortunately--rare cases, I hope--people who are charged with protecting the people and their liberty may in some cases be inclined to be at odds with it. It is unfortunate that the 45th President of the United States has had, quite tragically, to become the victim of this. But I ask the question, what if your information were on the line? What if you had been targeted--maybe for political reasons, maybe for reasons that had nothing to do with politics, maybe for reasons that just had to deal with a personal vendetta someone had against any American. It is far less likely that the abuse would ever have come to light. In this circumstance, it did come to light. We can't ignore it, nor can we pretend that it couldn't happen to any one of us--and I don't mean as Members of the U.S. Senate; I just mean as Americans. In fact, each and every one of us is less capable of standing up to this and less likely to discover the abuse in the first instance. Not all of us happen to be the President of the United States. I am grateful that President Donald J. Trump has been willing to speak truth to power and has been willing to call out the flagrant abuse of FISA and of other procedures within the government. It is our obligation, it is our solemn duty, and it is my pleasure to do something about it. The Lee-Leahy amendment does something about it, and I invite all of my colleagues to join me in supporting it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. LEE
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-12-pt1-PgS2366
| null | 608
|
formal
|
based
| null |
white supremacist
|
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I wish to state for the record that, though the difficulties of traveling across the country in the midst of the current coronavirus pandemic made it impossible for me to present in the Capitol to vote on the nomination Brian D. Montgomery, of Texas, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, I would have voted `nay' had I been present. Few things create a stronger foundation for a thriving, successful families than affordable housing. Study after study has shown that children who grow up in a stable home do better in school and are more successful over the course of their lives. Stable affordable housing builds strong neighborhoods and communities because the members of that community are invested in its success. For generations of Americans, homeownership has been a driving force behind the building of a strong middle class, helping families build wealth through the equity generated through homeownership. As the son of a union mechanic, I experienced this throughout my own life. My father's wages were enough to afford a modest ranch home in a blue collar Oregon community. And because of that house and that community, I was given all kinds of opportunities. I was allowed to explore my interests, whether it was taking machines apart and putting them back together again in my dad's garage or exploring the great outdoors as a Boy Scout. I was able to receive a good public education and go on to be the first in my family to graduate from college. But far too many Americans don't have those same opportunities today. That is because the goal of affordable housing, whether buying a house or renting a decent apartment, is out of reach for too many working and middle-class families and falling furtherout of reach with every day that passes. Prior to this pandemic, we saw rents and home prices rising twice as fast as worker's incomes. Today, the cost of a typical single-family home is four times greater than the median household income. We need a Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development who will make it a priority to reverse the trajectory that we have been on and to actually make housing more affordable in America. This position is responsible for management of all day-to-day operations within HUD, including roughly 7,700 employees. They oversee a budget of approximately $50 billion that funds a number of programs meant to provide quality, affordable housing for lower income Americans, provides rental assistance for low-income families, and distributes grants to states and communities for various housing-related purposes and also enforces the Fair Housing Act. Brian Montgomery is not the person for the job. In his current role as the FHA Commissioner, Mr. Montgomery has supported policies from the Trump administration that would increase the cost of FHA loans and include risk-based pricing, continuing to make homeownership even less affordable for those who can least afford it. He was also part of the senior leadership team that published a rule that would help undermine enforcement of the Fair Housing Act through the Disparate Impact Study. The disparate impact standard is a longstanding tool used to root out policies and practices that may not be openly discriminatory on their face, but disproportionally harm a protected class under the Fair Housing Act. The proposed rule that Mr. Montgomery helped create--and which is vigorously opposed by a coalition of fair housing, civil rights, and consumer groups--rigs the system to make it nearly impossible for a victim of discrimination to win a disparate impact claim. A person who has used his current position to make it harder for low- and middle-income Americans to afford to buy a home should not serve in a top-tier position as the equivalent of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's chief financial officer. We need individuals in these positions fighting to get families into homes, not pushing that dream further and further out of reach. Therefore, I oppose Mr. Montgomery's nomination to serve as the Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and would have voted nay, had I been able to be present.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. MERKLEY
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-12-pt1-PgS2374-3
| null | 609
|
formal
|
blue
| null |
antisemitic
|
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I wish to state for the record that, though the difficulties of traveling across the country in the midst of the current coronavirus pandemic made it impossible for me to present in the Capitol to vote on the nomination Brian D. Montgomery, of Texas, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, I would have voted `nay' had I been present. Few things create a stronger foundation for a thriving, successful families than affordable housing. Study after study has shown that children who grow up in a stable home do better in school and are more successful over the course of their lives. Stable affordable housing builds strong neighborhoods and communities because the members of that community are invested in its success. For generations of Americans, homeownership has been a driving force behind the building of a strong middle class, helping families build wealth through the equity generated through homeownership. As the son of a union mechanic, I experienced this throughout my own life. My father's wages were enough to afford a modest ranch home in a blue collar Oregon community. And because of that house and that community, I was given all kinds of opportunities. I was allowed to explore my interests, whether it was taking machines apart and putting them back together again in my dad's garage or exploring the great outdoors as a Boy Scout. I was able to receive a good public education and go on to be the first in my family to graduate from college. But far too many Americans don't have those same opportunities today. That is because the goal of affordable housing, whether buying a house or renting a decent apartment, is out of reach for too many working and middle-class families and falling furtherout of reach with every day that passes. Prior to this pandemic, we saw rents and home prices rising twice as fast as worker's incomes. Today, the cost of a typical single-family home is four times greater than the median household income. We need a Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development who will make it a priority to reverse the trajectory that we have been on and to actually make housing more affordable in America. This position is responsible for management of all day-to-day operations within HUD, including roughly 7,700 employees. They oversee a budget of approximately $50 billion that funds a number of programs meant to provide quality, affordable housing for lower income Americans, provides rental assistance for low-income families, and distributes grants to states and communities for various housing-related purposes and also enforces the Fair Housing Act. Brian Montgomery is not the person for the job. In his current role as the FHA Commissioner, Mr. Montgomery has supported policies from the Trump administration that would increase the cost of FHA loans and include risk-based pricing, continuing to make homeownership even less affordable for those who can least afford it. He was also part of the senior leadership team that published a rule that would help undermine enforcement of the Fair Housing Act through the Disparate Impact Study. The disparate impact standard is a longstanding tool used to root out policies and practices that may not be openly discriminatory on their face, but disproportionally harm a protected class under the Fair Housing Act. The proposed rule that Mr. Montgomery helped create--and which is vigorously opposed by a coalition of fair housing, civil rights, and consumer groups--rigs the system to make it nearly impossible for a victim of discrimination to win a disparate impact claim. A person who has used his current position to make it harder for low- and middle-income Americans to afford to buy a home should not serve in a top-tier position as the equivalent of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's chief financial officer. We need individuals in these positions fighting to get families into homes, not pushing that dream further and further out of reach. Therefore, I oppose Mr. Montgomery's nomination to serve as the Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and would have voted nay, had I been able to be present.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. MERKLEY
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-12-pt1-PgS2374-3
| null | 610
|
formal
|
single
| null |
homophobic
|
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I wish to state for the record that, though the difficulties of traveling across the country in the midst of the current coronavirus pandemic made it impossible for me to present in the Capitol to vote on the nomination Brian D. Montgomery, of Texas, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, I would have voted `nay' had I been present. Few things create a stronger foundation for a thriving, successful families than affordable housing. Study after study has shown that children who grow up in a stable home do better in school and are more successful over the course of their lives. Stable affordable housing builds strong neighborhoods and communities because the members of that community are invested in its success. For generations of Americans, homeownership has been a driving force behind the building of a strong middle class, helping families build wealth through the equity generated through homeownership. As the son of a union mechanic, I experienced this throughout my own life. My father's wages were enough to afford a modest ranch home in a blue collar Oregon community. And because of that house and that community, I was given all kinds of opportunities. I was allowed to explore my interests, whether it was taking machines apart and putting them back together again in my dad's garage or exploring the great outdoors as a Boy Scout. I was able to receive a good public education and go on to be the first in my family to graduate from college. But far too many Americans don't have those same opportunities today. That is because the goal of affordable housing, whether buying a house or renting a decent apartment, is out of reach for too many working and middle-class families and falling furtherout of reach with every day that passes. Prior to this pandemic, we saw rents and home prices rising twice as fast as worker's incomes. Today, the cost of a typical single-family home is four times greater than the median household income. We need a Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development who will make it a priority to reverse the trajectory that we have been on and to actually make housing more affordable in America. This position is responsible for management of all day-to-day operations within HUD, including roughly 7,700 employees. They oversee a budget of approximately $50 billion that funds a number of programs meant to provide quality, affordable housing for lower income Americans, provides rental assistance for low-income families, and distributes grants to states and communities for various housing-related purposes and also enforces the Fair Housing Act. Brian Montgomery is not the person for the job. In his current role as the FHA Commissioner, Mr. Montgomery has supported policies from the Trump administration that would increase the cost of FHA loans and include risk-based pricing, continuing to make homeownership even less affordable for those who can least afford it. He was also part of the senior leadership team that published a rule that would help undermine enforcement of the Fair Housing Act through the Disparate Impact Study. The disparate impact standard is a longstanding tool used to root out policies and practices that may not be openly discriminatory on their face, but disproportionally harm a protected class under the Fair Housing Act. The proposed rule that Mr. Montgomery helped create--and which is vigorously opposed by a coalition of fair housing, civil rights, and consumer groups--rigs the system to make it nearly impossible for a victim of discrimination to win a disparate impact claim. A person who has used his current position to make it harder for low- and middle-income Americans to afford to buy a home should not serve in a top-tier position as the equivalent of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's chief financial officer. We need individuals in these positions fighting to get families into homes, not pushing that dream further and further out of reach. Therefore, I oppose Mr. Montgomery's nomination to serve as the Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and would have voted nay, had I been able to be present.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. MERKLEY
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-12-pt1-PgS2374-3
| null | 611
|
formal
|
middle class
| null |
racist
|
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I wish to state for the record that, though the difficulties of traveling across the country in the midst of the current coronavirus pandemic made it impossible for me to present in the Capitol to vote on the nomination Brian D. Montgomery, of Texas, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, I would have voted `nay' had I been present. Few things create a stronger foundation for a thriving, successful families than affordable housing. Study after study has shown that children who grow up in a stable home do better in school and are more successful over the course of their lives. Stable affordable housing builds strong neighborhoods and communities because the members of that community are invested in its success. For generations of Americans, homeownership has been a driving force behind the building of a strong middle class, helping families build wealth through the equity generated through homeownership. As the son of a union mechanic, I experienced this throughout my own life. My father's wages were enough to afford a modest ranch home in a blue collar Oregon community. And because of that house and that community, I was given all kinds of opportunities. I was allowed to explore my interests, whether it was taking machines apart and putting them back together again in my dad's garage or exploring the great outdoors as a Boy Scout. I was able to receive a good public education and go on to be the first in my family to graduate from college. But far too many Americans don't have those same opportunities today. That is because the goal of affordable housing, whether buying a house or renting a decent apartment, is out of reach for too many working and middle-class families and falling furtherout of reach with every day that passes. Prior to this pandemic, we saw rents and home prices rising twice as fast as worker's incomes. Today, the cost of a typical single-family home is four times greater than the median household income. We need a Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development who will make it a priority to reverse the trajectory that we have been on and to actually make housing more affordable in America. This position is responsible for management of all day-to-day operations within HUD, including roughly 7,700 employees. They oversee a budget of approximately $50 billion that funds a number of programs meant to provide quality, affordable housing for lower income Americans, provides rental assistance for low-income families, and distributes grants to states and communities for various housing-related purposes and also enforces the Fair Housing Act. Brian Montgomery is not the person for the job. In his current role as the FHA Commissioner, Mr. Montgomery has supported policies from the Trump administration that would increase the cost of FHA loans and include risk-based pricing, continuing to make homeownership even less affordable for those who can least afford it. He was also part of the senior leadership team that published a rule that would help undermine enforcement of the Fair Housing Act through the Disparate Impact Study. The disparate impact standard is a longstanding tool used to root out policies and practices that may not be openly discriminatory on their face, but disproportionally harm a protected class under the Fair Housing Act. The proposed rule that Mr. Montgomery helped create--and which is vigorously opposed by a coalition of fair housing, civil rights, and consumer groups--rigs the system to make it nearly impossible for a victim of discrimination to win a disparate impact claim. A person who has used his current position to make it harder for low- and middle-income Americans to afford to buy a home should not serve in a top-tier position as the equivalent of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's chief financial officer. We need individuals in these positions fighting to get families into homes, not pushing that dream further and further out of reach. Therefore, I oppose Mr. Montgomery's nomination to serve as the Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and would have voted nay, had I been able to be present.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. MERKLEY
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-12-pt1-PgS2374-3
| null | 612
|
formal
|
the Fed
| null |
antisemitic
|
The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-4455. A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the National Emergencies Act, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, a report relative to the issuance of an Executive Order declaring a national emergency to deal with the threat posed by the unrestricted acquisition or use in the United States of bulk-power system electric equipment designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of foreign adversaries; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-4456. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on the mobilizations of selected reserve units, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 11, 2020; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4457. A communication from the Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Prioritization and Allocation of Certain Scare or Threatened Health and Medical Resources for Domestic Use'' (RIN1660-AB01) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 4, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4458. A communication from the Director of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Interim Final Rule - Regulatory Capital Rule: Paycheck Protection Program Lending Facility and Paycheck Protection Program Loans; Correction'' (RIN3064-AF49) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 7, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4459. A communication from the Program Specialist, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Order of Temporary Extension of Maturity Limits for Short-Term Investment Funds'' (12 CFR Part 9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 7, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4460. A communication from the Program Specialist, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Short-Term Investment Funds'' (RIN1557-AE84) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 7, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4461. A communication from the Program Specialist, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Regulatory Capital Rule: Eligible Retained Income'' (RIN1557-AE81) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 7, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4462. A communication from the Program Specialist, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Regulatory Capital Rule: Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility'' (RIN1557-AE83) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 7, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4463. A communication from the Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Application of Certain Provisions in the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule and Regulation Z Right of Rescission Rules in Light of the COVID- 19 Pandemic'' (12 CFR Part 1026) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 6, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4464. A communication from the Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Handling of Information and Documents During Mortgage Servicing Transfers'' (12 CFR Part 1024) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 6, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4465. A communication from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on discretionary appropriations legislation relative to sec. 251(a)(7) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985; to the Committee on the Budget. EC-4466. A communication from the Deputy General Counsel, Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Accidental Release Reporting'' ((RIN3301-AA00) (40 CFR Part 1604)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 4, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4467. A communication from the Senior Advisor, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 4, 2020; to the Committee on Finance. EC-4468. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 23-266, ``Bishop Sherman S. Howard Way Designation Act of 2020''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-4469. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 23-267, ``Certified Professional Midwife Amendment Act of 2020''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-4470. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 23-268, ``Security Breach Protection Amendment Act of 2020''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-4471. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 23-269, ``Woody Ward Recreation Center Designation Act of 2020''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-4472. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 23-270, ``James E. Bunn Amphitheater Designation Act of 2020''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-4473. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 23-271, ``Zaire Kelly Park Designation Act of 2020''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-4474. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 23-272, ``Rev. Roy Settles Way Designation Act of 2020''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-4475. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 23-273, ``Condominium Warranty Claims Clarification Temporary Amendment Act of 2020''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-4476. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 23-274, ``Non-Public Student Educational Continuity Temporary Amendment Act of 2020''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-4477. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 23-275, ``Substantive Technical Temporary Amendment Act of 2020''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-4478. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 23-277, ``Leave Vote Temporary Amendment Act of 2020''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-4479. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 23-278, ``Extreme Risk Protection Order Implementation Working Group Temporary Amendment Act of 2020''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-4480. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 23-279, ``Reverse Mortgage Insurance and Tax Payment Program Temporary Amendment Act of 2020''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-4481. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 23-276, ``Ghost Guns Prohibition Temporary Amendment Act of 2020''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-4482. A communication from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, the amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that have been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-4483. A communication from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, the amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure that have been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-4484. A communication from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, the amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence that have been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-4485. A communication from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that have been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-4486. A communication from the Section Chief of the Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Schedules of Controlled Substances: Removal of 6B-Naltrexol From Control'' ((21 CFR Part 1308) (Docket No. DEA-492)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 4, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-4487. A communication from the Section Chief of the Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB- FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA in Schedule I'' ((21 CFR Part 1308) (Docket No. DEA-446)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 4, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-4488. A communication from the Section Chief of the Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Schedules of Controlled Substances: Extension of Temporary Placement of cyclopentyl fentanyl, isobutyryl fentanyl, para-chloroisobutyryl fentanyl, para-methoxybutyryl, and valeryl fentanyl in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act'' ((21 CFR Part 1308) (Docket No. DEA-565)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 4, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-4489. A communication from the Section Chief of the Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of Brexanolone in Schedule IV'' ((21 CFR Part 1308) (Docket No. DEA-503)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 4, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-4490. A communication from the Section Chief of the Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of Cenobamate in Schedule V'' ((21 CFR Part 1308) (Docket No. DEA-581)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 4, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-4491. A communication from the Section Chief of the Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of FUB-AMB in Schedule I'' ((21 CFR Part 1308) (Docket No. DEA-472)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 4, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-4492. A communication from the Federal Register Liaison Officer, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Modernization of the Labeling and Advertising Regulations for Wine, Distilled Spirits, and Malt Beverages'' (RIN1513-AB54) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 4, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-4493. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, Expansion of Online Public File Obligation to Cable and Satellite TV Operators and Broadcast and Satellite Television Operators and Broadcast and Satellite Radio Licensees, Standardized and Enhanced Disclosure Requirements for Television Broadcast Licensee Public Interest Obligation'' ((FCC 20-32) (MB Docket Nos. 17-105 and 14-127)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 4, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4494. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Implementation of Section 1004 of the Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019'' ((FCC 20-375) (MB Docket No. 20-61)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 4, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4495. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``In the Matter of Electronic Delivery of MVPD Communications; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative'' ((FCC 20-14) (MB Docket No. 17-105)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 4, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4496. A communication from the Assistant Administrator for Satellite and Information Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Licensing of Private Remote-Sensing Space Systems'' (RIN0648-BA15) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 4, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4497. A communication from the Deputy Chief, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Consortium registration process'' ((FCC 20-34) (EB Docket No. 20-22)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 4, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4498. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Security Zone; Cooper River; Charleston, SC'' ((RIN1625-AA87) (Docket No. USCG-2019-0933)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 24, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4499. A communication from the Associate Bureau Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Call Authentication Trust Anchor, Implementing of TRACED Act Section 6(a) - Knowledge of Customers by Entities with Access to Numbering Resources, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking'' ((FCC 20-42) (WC Docket Nos. 17-97 and 20-67)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 4, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4500. A communication from the Deputy Bureau Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Promoting Telehealth for Low-Income Consumers, COVID-19 Telehealth Program'' ((RIN3060-AK57) (WC Docket Nos. 18-213 and 20-89)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 4, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4501. 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 ``Review of the Emergency Alert System'' ((FCC 19-57) (EB Docket No. 04-296)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 4, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4502. A communication from the Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Hazardous Materials: Harmonization with International Standards'' (RIN2137-AF32) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 4, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4503. A communication from the Program Analyst, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks'' (RIN2127-AL76) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 4, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
|
2020-01-06
|
Unknown
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-12-pt1-PgS2377
| null | 613
|
formal
|
based
| null |
white supremacist
|
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, Americans owe a great debt of gratitude to the healthcare heroes on the frontlines of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, I would like to spend a few minutes talking about one special group of healthcare workers: immigrants. Consider this: 1 in 6 healthcare and social service workers--3.1 million out of 18.7 million--are immigrants. These immigrants are playing a critical role in the battle against the pandemic, yet our broken immigration system does not allow many of them to fulfill their dreams of becoming part of America's future. I have come to the floor today to tell a story of one of our immigrant health heroes, and I will continue to highlight these stories in the coming weeks. I am also inviting my colleagues from across the Nation to come tell their own stories on social media or on the floor with #ImmigrantHealthHeroes, shown on this chart. Thousands of immigrant health workers are suffering because of a serious problem in our immigration system: It is the green card backlog. This backlog puts them and their families at risk of losing their immigration status, and it hinders their ability to participate in the fight against COVID-19. Under our current laws, there are not nearly enough immigrant visas, also known as green cards, available each year. As a result, immigrants are struck in crippling backlogs not just for years but for decades. Close to 5 million future Americans are in line waiting for green cards. Hundreds of thousands of them are already working in the United States on temporary visas, while many more are waiting abroad, separated from their American families. Only 226,000 family green cards and 140,000 employment green cards are available each year. The backlogs are really hard on these families who are caught in this immigration limbo. For example, children in many of these families age out and face deportation as their parents are waiting in line for their green cards. The green card backlog includes thousands of doctors--medical doctors--who are currently working in our country on a temporary basis. These doctors face many restrictions due to their temporary status, such as not being able to volunteer at hospitals in COVID-19 hotspots where they are so desperately needed. The solution to the green card backlog is clear: Increase the number. In 2013, I joined a group of four Republicans and four Democrats who authored a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. The bill passed the Senate with a strong vote, 68-3, and it would have eliminated the green card backlog. Last year, I introduced the RELIEF Act, legislation based on the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform bill that would clear the backlog for all immigrants waiting in line for green cards within 5 years. I will keep fighting to help all immigrants who are stuck in this backlog. Last week, I joined with my colleagues, Republican Senators David Perdue of Georgia, Todd Young of Indiana, and John Cornyn of Texas and Democratic Senators Chris Coons of Delaware and Pat Leahy of Vermont to introduce legislation to quickly address the plight of immigrant doctors and nurses who are stuck in this green card backlog. This backlog poses a significant risk to our ability to effectively respond to this pandemic. Our bill, the Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act, is a temporary stopgap bill that will strengthen our healthcare workforce and improve healthcare access for Americans in the midst of this crisis. Our bill would recapture 25,000 unused immigrant visas for nurses and 15,000 unused visas for doctors. These are visas that Congress previously authorized, but we never used. Our bill would quickly allocate these visas to doctors and nurses who can help us today in the fight against COVID-19. It is important to note that our bill requires employers to attest that any immigrant from overseas who receives these visas will not displace an American worker. We want to ensure that all beneficiaries of this bill complement our American healthcare workforce. As Congress begins to work on the next legislation to address this pandemic, I will push for the Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act to be included. Today, I want to tell you the story of one immigrant healthcare worker who is stuck in this green card backlog and would benefit from the act I just described. This is Dr. Ram Sanjeev Alur. Dr. Alur was born in India. As a child, he survived a bout with meningitis, a disease that is often fatal. This experience inspired him to become a doctor. He went to medical school in India, then trained in internal medicine in the United Kingdom. Dr. Alur came to the United States in 2007 for medical residency training. In 2011, he began working as an internist and hospitalist in the Marion Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Marion, IL. Dr. Alur has led the emergency room inpatient unit for the last 3 years, and now, he is on the frontlines of the pandemic as a member of his hospital's COVID-19 response team. Dr. Alur lives in Marion with his wife and three kids. Their ages are 12, 8, and 6. He sent me a letter, but listen to what he said about his life in southern Illinois living in Marion: I consider the opportunity to work at the VA medical center as a blessing. To serve the veterans is an honor, responsibility and satisfaction that enhances anyone's life. I found my calling and hope to spend the rest of my career and raise my family here. I would like to see my children blossom in this community and grow into successful, responsible citizens. Unfortunately, Dr. Alur is one of thousands of doctors stuck in this green card backlog. He has been forced to renew his temporary visa four timessince he started working serving our veterans at the Marion VA facility. He has been approved for a green card but will have to wait decades--decades--because of the backlog of people just like him, waiting for their green cards. In the meantime, Dr. Alur's oldest daughter would age out--she is 12 now--but she would age out and be forced to leave the country before he is legally entitled to become a citizen of this country. Think of that heartbreaking situation, breaking up this man's family because he has been approved for a visa but has to wait to make sure he meets the quota in each year, and he will end up waiting for decades. In the midst of this pandemic, Dr. Alur's immigration status puts him at a great risk. If, God forbid--God forbid--he contracts COVID-19 and becomes disabled or dies, his family would lose their immigration status and be forced to leave the United States. Tell me that is fair, that this man who is serving our veterans and has waited patiently to become a citizen of United States and be part of our future, should he get sick or die, his family would be deported. Here is what he said to me about this: The pandemic shook our family. Being a temporary worker on a visa never stared us in the face more. This lack of protection is every frontline immigrant doctor's nightmare. Dr. Alur's temporary immigration status also prevents him from working part-time in a COVID-19 hotspot like Chicago. Here is what he said: It is depressing to watch the medical system, stretched while the pandemic takes its toll, and not be able to help or participate. It is like a soldier sitting out a battle, player sitting out a game, fireman sitting out a house fire. His family's plight led Dr. Alur to start Physicians for American Health Care Access, a nonprofit organization to advocate for doctors serving underserved communities who are stuck in this green card backlog. I can tell you, in southern Illinois, we are desperate for good doctors. We need them not just at Marion VA, but we need more specialists around the entire region. This is a rural area of our State, small-town area, and they need these specialists more than ever. How we can take a good man like this, who is willing to serve our veterans and do more in this COVID-19 epidemic, and tell him he is not welcome to be a citizen of this country, I just do not understand. When I heard Dr. Alur's story, it inspired me to work with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to introduce this law that I mentioned, the Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act. Under our bill, Dr. Alur and thousands like him could receive their green cards. They and their families would get the permanent immigration status that they deserve and be able to use their skills to serve in the frontlines of the pandemic if they are needed--and they are. I hope that, even in these divided times, we can come together in Congress to quickly aid these immigrant healthcare heroes.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. DURBIN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-12-pt1-PgS2383-2
| null | 614
|
formal
|
quota
| null |
racist
|
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, Americans owe a great debt of gratitude to the healthcare heroes on the frontlines of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, I would like to spend a few minutes talking about one special group of healthcare workers: immigrants. Consider this: 1 in 6 healthcare and social service workers--3.1 million out of 18.7 million--are immigrants. These immigrants are playing a critical role in the battle against the pandemic, yet our broken immigration system does not allow many of them to fulfill their dreams of becoming part of America's future. I have come to the floor today to tell a story of one of our immigrant health heroes, and I will continue to highlight these stories in the coming weeks. I am also inviting my colleagues from across the Nation to come tell their own stories on social media or on the floor with #ImmigrantHealthHeroes, shown on this chart. Thousands of immigrant health workers are suffering because of a serious problem in our immigration system: It is the green card backlog. This backlog puts them and their families at risk of losing their immigration status, and it hinders their ability to participate in the fight against COVID-19. Under our current laws, there are not nearly enough immigrant visas, also known as green cards, available each year. As a result, immigrants are struck in crippling backlogs not just for years but for decades. Close to 5 million future Americans are in line waiting for green cards. Hundreds of thousands of them are already working in the United States on temporary visas, while many more are waiting abroad, separated from their American families. Only 226,000 family green cards and 140,000 employment green cards are available each year. The backlogs are really hard on these families who are caught in this immigration limbo. For example, children in many of these families age out and face deportation as their parents are waiting in line for their green cards. The green card backlog includes thousands of doctors--medical doctors--who are currently working in our country on a temporary basis. These doctors face many restrictions due to their temporary status, such as not being able to volunteer at hospitals in COVID-19 hotspots where they are so desperately needed. The solution to the green card backlog is clear: Increase the number. In 2013, I joined a group of four Republicans and four Democrats who authored a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. The bill passed the Senate with a strong vote, 68-3, and it would have eliminated the green card backlog. Last year, I introduced the RELIEF Act, legislation based on the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform bill that would clear the backlog for all immigrants waiting in line for green cards within 5 years. I will keep fighting to help all immigrants who are stuck in this backlog. Last week, I joined with my colleagues, Republican Senators David Perdue of Georgia, Todd Young of Indiana, and John Cornyn of Texas and Democratic Senators Chris Coons of Delaware and Pat Leahy of Vermont to introduce legislation to quickly address the plight of immigrant doctors and nurses who are stuck in this green card backlog. This backlog poses a significant risk to our ability to effectively respond to this pandemic. Our bill, the Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act, is a temporary stopgap bill that will strengthen our healthcare workforce and improve healthcare access for Americans in the midst of this crisis. Our bill would recapture 25,000 unused immigrant visas for nurses and 15,000 unused visas for doctors. These are visas that Congress previously authorized, but we never used. Our bill would quickly allocate these visas to doctors and nurses who can help us today in the fight against COVID-19. It is important to note that our bill requires employers to attest that any immigrant from overseas who receives these visas will not displace an American worker. We want to ensure that all beneficiaries of this bill complement our American healthcare workforce. As Congress begins to work on the next legislation to address this pandemic, I will push for the Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act to be included. Today, I want to tell you the story of one immigrant healthcare worker who is stuck in this green card backlog and would benefit from the act I just described. This is Dr. Ram Sanjeev Alur. Dr. Alur was born in India. As a child, he survived a bout with meningitis, a disease that is often fatal. This experience inspired him to become a doctor. He went to medical school in India, then trained in internal medicine in the United Kingdom. Dr. Alur came to the United States in 2007 for medical residency training. In 2011, he began working as an internist and hospitalist in the Marion Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Marion, IL. Dr. Alur has led the emergency room inpatient unit for the last 3 years, and now, he is on the frontlines of the pandemic as a member of his hospital's COVID-19 response team. Dr. Alur lives in Marion with his wife and three kids. Their ages are 12, 8, and 6. He sent me a letter, but listen to what he said about his life in southern Illinois living in Marion: I consider the opportunity to work at the VA medical center as a blessing. To serve the veterans is an honor, responsibility and satisfaction that enhances anyone's life. I found my calling and hope to spend the rest of my career and raise my family here. I would like to see my children blossom in this community and grow into successful, responsible citizens. Unfortunately, Dr. Alur is one of thousands of doctors stuck in this green card backlog. He has been forced to renew his temporary visa four timessince he started working serving our veterans at the Marion VA facility. He has been approved for a green card but will have to wait decades--decades--because of the backlog of people just like him, waiting for their green cards. In the meantime, Dr. Alur's oldest daughter would age out--she is 12 now--but she would age out and be forced to leave the country before he is legally entitled to become a citizen of this country. Think of that heartbreaking situation, breaking up this man's family because he has been approved for a visa but has to wait to make sure he meets the quota in each year, and he will end up waiting for decades. In the midst of this pandemic, Dr. Alur's immigration status puts him at a great risk. If, God forbid--God forbid--he contracts COVID-19 and becomes disabled or dies, his family would lose their immigration status and be forced to leave the United States. Tell me that is fair, that this man who is serving our veterans and has waited patiently to become a citizen of United States and be part of our future, should he get sick or die, his family would be deported. Here is what he said to me about this: The pandemic shook our family. Being a temporary worker on a visa never stared us in the face more. This lack of protection is every frontline immigrant doctor's nightmare. Dr. Alur's temporary immigration status also prevents him from working part-time in a COVID-19 hotspot like Chicago. Here is what he said: It is depressing to watch the medical system, stretched while the pandemic takes its toll, and not be able to help or participate. It is like a soldier sitting out a battle, player sitting out a game, fireman sitting out a house fire. His family's plight led Dr. Alur to start Physicians for American Health Care Access, a nonprofit organization to advocate for doctors serving underserved communities who are stuck in this green card backlog. I can tell you, in southern Illinois, we are desperate for good doctors. We need them not just at Marion VA, but we need more specialists around the entire region. This is a rural area of our State, small-town area, and they need these specialists more than ever. How we can take a good man like this, who is willing to serve our veterans and do more in this COVID-19 epidemic, and tell him he is not welcome to be a citizen of this country, I just do not understand. When I heard Dr. Alur's story, it inspired me to work with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to introduce this law that I mentioned, the Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act. Under our bill, Dr. Alur and thousands like him could receive their green cards. They and their families would get the permanent immigration status that they deserve and be able to use their skills to serve in the frontlines of the pandemic if they are needed--and they are. I hope that, even in these divided times, we can come together in Congress to quickly aid these immigrant healthcare heroes.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. DURBIN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-12-pt1-PgS2383-2
| null | 615
|
formal
|
Chicago
| null |
racist
|
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, Americans owe a great debt of gratitude to the healthcare heroes on the frontlines of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, I would like to spend a few minutes talking about one special group of healthcare workers: immigrants. Consider this: 1 in 6 healthcare and social service workers--3.1 million out of 18.7 million--are immigrants. These immigrants are playing a critical role in the battle against the pandemic, yet our broken immigration system does not allow many of them to fulfill their dreams of becoming part of America's future. I have come to the floor today to tell a story of one of our immigrant health heroes, and I will continue to highlight these stories in the coming weeks. I am also inviting my colleagues from across the Nation to come tell their own stories on social media or on the floor with #ImmigrantHealthHeroes, shown on this chart. Thousands of immigrant health workers are suffering because of a serious problem in our immigration system: It is the green card backlog. This backlog puts them and their families at risk of losing their immigration status, and it hinders their ability to participate in the fight against COVID-19. Under our current laws, there are not nearly enough immigrant visas, also known as green cards, available each year. As a result, immigrants are struck in crippling backlogs not just for years but for decades. Close to 5 million future Americans are in line waiting for green cards. Hundreds of thousands of them are already working in the United States on temporary visas, while many more are waiting abroad, separated from their American families. Only 226,000 family green cards and 140,000 employment green cards are available each year. The backlogs are really hard on these families who are caught in this immigration limbo. For example, children in many of these families age out and face deportation as their parents are waiting in line for their green cards. The green card backlog includes thousands of doctors--medical doctors--who are currently working in our country on a temporary basis. These doctors face many restrictions due to their temporary status, such as not being able to volunteer at hospitals in COVID-19 hotspots where they are so desperately needed. The solution to the green card backlog is clear: Increase the number. In 2013, I joined a group of four Republicans and four Democrats who authored a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. The bill passed the Senate with a strong vote, 68-3, and it would have eliminated the green card backlog. Last year, I introduced the RELIEF Act, legislation based on the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform bill that would clear the backlog for all immigrants waiting in line for green cards within 5 years. I will keep fighting to help all immigrants who are stuck in this backlog. Last week, I joined with my colleagues, Republican Senators David Perdue of Georgia, Todd Young of Indiana, and John Cornyn of Texas and Democratic Senators Chris Coons of Delaware and Pat Leahy of Vermont to introduce legislation to quickly address the plight of immigrant doctors and nurses who are stuck in this green card backlog. This backlog poses a significant risk to our ability to effectively respond to this pandemic. Our bill, the Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act, is a temporary stopgap bill that will strengthen our healthcare workforce and improve healthcare access for Americans in the midst of this crisis. Our bill would recapture 25,000 unused immigrant visas for nurses and 15,000 unused visas for doctors. These are visas that Congress previously authorized, but we never used. Our bill would quickly allocate these visas to doctors and nurses who can help us today in the fight against COVID-19. It is important to note that our bill requires employers to attest that any immigrant from overseas who receives these visas will not displace an American worker. We want to ensure that all beneficiaries of this bill complement our American healthcare workforce. As Congress begins to work on the next legislation to address this pandemic, I will push for the Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act to be included. Today, I want to tell you the story of one immigrant healthcare worker who is stuck in this green card backlog and would benefit from the act I just described. This is Dr. Ram Sanjeev Alur. Dr. Alur was born in India. As a child, he survived a bout with meningitis, a disease that is often fatal. This experience inspired him to become a doctor. He went to medical school in India, then trained in internal medicine in the United Kingdom. Dr. Alur came to the United States in 2007 for medical residency training. In 2011, he began working as an internist and hospitalist in the Marion Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Marion, IL. Dr. Alur has led the emergency room inpatient unit for the last 3 years, and now, he is on the frontlines of the pandemic as a member of his hospital's COVID-19 response team. Dr. Alur lives in Marion with his wife and three kids. Their ages are 12, 8, and 6. He sent me a letter, but listen to what he said about his life in southern Illinois living in Marion: I consider the opportunity to work at the VA medical center as a blessing. To serve the veterans is an honor, responsibility and satisfaction that enhances anyone's life. I found my calling and hope to spend the rest of my career and raise my family here. I would like to see my children blossom in this community and grow into successful, responsible citizens. Unfortunately, Dr. Alur is one of thousands of doctors stuck in this green card backlog. He has been forced to renew his temporary visa four timessince he started working serving our veterans at the Marion VA facility. He has been approved for a green card but will have to wait decades--decades--because of the backlog of people just like him, waiting for their green cards. In the meantime, Dr. Alur's oldest daughter would age out--she is 12 now--but she would age out and be forced to leave the country before he is legally entitled to become a citizen of this country. Think of that heartbreaking situation, breaking up this man's family because he has been approved for a visa but has to wait to make sure he meets the quota in each year, and he will end up waiting for decades. In the midst of this pandemic, Dr. Alur's immigration status puts him at a great risk. If, God forbid--God forbid--he contracts COVID-19 and becomes disabled or dies, his family would lose their immigration status and be forced to leave the United States. Tell me that is fair, that this man who is serving our veterans and has waited patiently to become a citizen of United States and be part of our future, should he get sick or die, his family would be deported. Here is what he said to me about this: The pandemic shook our family. Being a temporary worker on a visa never stared us in the face more. This lack of protection is every frontline immigrant doctor's nightmare. Dr. Alur's temporary immigration status also prevents him from working part-time in a COVID-19 hotspot like Chicago. Here is what he said: It is depressing to watch the medical system, stretched while the pandemic takes its toll, and not be able to help or participate. It is like a soldier sitting out a battle, player sitting out a game, fireman sitting out a house fire. His family's plight led Dr. Alur to start Physicians for American Health Care Access, a nonprofit organization to advocate for doctors serving underserved communities who are stuck in this green card backlog. I can tell you, in southern Illinois, we are desperate for good doctors. We need them not just at Marion VA, but we need more specialists around the entire region. This is a rural area of our State, small-town area, and they need these specialists more than ever. How we can take a good man like this, who is willing to serve our veterans and do more in this COVID-19 epidemic, and tell him he is not welcome to be a citizen of this country, I just do not understand. When I heard Dr. Alur's story, it inspired me to work with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to introduce this law that I mentioned, the Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act. Under our bill, Dr. Alur and thousands like him could receive their green cards. They and their families would get the permanent immigration status that they deserve and be able to use their skills to serve in the frontlines of the pandemic if they are needed--and they are. I hope that, even in these divided times, we can come together in Congress to quickly aid these immigrant healthcare heroes.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. DURBIN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-12-pt1-PgS2383-2
| null | 616
|
formal
|
Chicago
| null |
racist
|
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in this season of great mourning, last Monday, America lost a man who tried for years--during some of our darkest moments--to comfort our grief-stricken Nation. His name was Greg Zanis, but he was known as ``The Cross Man.'' One month ago, he was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Last Friday, Mr. Zanis, his wife Sue, and their grown children watched from inside the Zanis family home in Aurora, IL, as a parade of neighbors drove past to show their love and respect for Greg. This caravan of caring stretched for a mile and included more than 320 cars, trucks, SUVs, and motorcycles. It was a fitting tribute to a quiet man whose compassion and sacrifice helped ease the grief of countless Americans over the last 25 years. You may never have heard his name before, but chances are you may have seen his work. After the Columbine High School massacre in 1999 and nearly every mass shooting and natural disaster since then, Greg Zanis crafted wooden memorials to honor the fallen. Over nearly 20 years, he made and personally delivered some 27,000 handmade memorials to communities across America. Most were crosses, but he also crafted wooden Stars of David and crescent moons to honor the fallen. He drove to Sandy Hook, CT, after 26 children and educators were murdered in that grade school. He drove to Florida to honor the victims of the Pulse Nightclub shooting and returned a heartbreaking short time later after the Parkland High School mass shooting. He drove to Las Vegas after 58 people were killed at a music festival; to the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, TX, after 26 worshippers were killed; to Pittsburgh, PA, to honor the 11 worshippers killed at the Tree of Life Synagogue. Greg Zanis considered his work a ministry, and it cost him financially and emotionally. He was a master carpenter who gave up much of the work he did otherwise to make and deliver these memorials. When he heard of a mass shooting or a deadly natural disaster, he loaded up his truck with crosses and drove, sometimes leaving in the middle of the night so he could get there as quickly as possible. One friend said that Mr. Zanis often wasn't sure, when he left home, how he would get the gas money to get back to Aurora. Somehow, he always did. He was in Aurora a little over a year ago, February 2019, when the epidemic of mass shootings came to his hometown. Five workers were killed, five police officers wounded at a mass shooting at a warehouse. The tragedy hit Mr. Zanis hard. As he told a reporter for the New York Times, he could drive away from all the other tragedies, but he said, ``I'm not going to be able to get away from this one.'' His ministry didn't take him only to places of mass suffering and death; he also made crosses for individuals. He made 700 crosses carried down Michigan Avenue in Chicago to honor those who died in that great city in 1 year. He made his first cross in 1996 to honor his father-in-law, who had been murdered in a shooting. He learned from that experience that transforming wood into symbols of faith helped to make grief more bearable. That is the gift that he tried to share with others. The mass shooting at a Walmart in El Paso last September shook him deeply. Among the 22 killed and 23 wounded were little children shopping for school supplies with their parents. Between the heat of the south Texas sun and the enormity of their losses, Mr. Zanis struggled to make enough crosses. He decided, after that, that he had to retire from his ministry. He was 69 years old. A few months later, his cancer was diagnosed. In this time, when so many of the usual customs of grieving must be suspended, may we all find some consolation and inspiration in the extraordinary, ordinary man who helped to ease the grief of so many. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. DURBIN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-12-pt1-PgS2384
| null | 617
|
formal
|
single
| null |
homophobic
|
Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, our Nation commemorates National Police Week in May, bringing together law enforcement officers, families, and public safety advocates from across the country to the Nation's Capital to pay respect to law enforcement officers who lost their lives in the line of duty last year. The coronavirus outbreak in our country has disrupted the public tributes in Washington and in communities across the country. However, COVID-19 will not diminish our heartfelt gratitude to the fallen and those they left behind. This year, an online virtual candlelight vigil has replaced an in-person national ceremony to honor fallen officers from across the Nation. Sadly, the State of Mississippi lost four officers in the line of duty last year. These brave men are being recognized this week, and their names have been added to the National Law Enforcement Memorial here in Washington, DC. On May 5, 2019, Officer Robert McKeithen, 58, of Biloxi, was ambushed and tragically murdered. An Air Force veteran, Office McKeithen served with the Biloxi Police Department for 24 years and planned on retiring by the end of the year. He was dearly loved by his family, friends, and fellow officers. Constable Willie West, known as Hoot, was first elected in 1971 as constable of Lowndes County District 1 and was serving his 13th consecutive term. He had previously served with the Columbus Police Department and Lowndes County Sheriff's Office. He had a total of 52 years of law enforcement service and was a founding member and first president of the Mississippi Constables Association. On May 6, 2019, Constable West was serving civil papers when his vehicle struck a tree. He succumbed to his injuries a few days later at the age of 81, leaving behind a son, two daughters, five grandchildren, five great-grandchildren, his mother, brother, and two sisters. Chickasaw County Deputy Sheriff Jeremy Voyles died in a single automobile crash while conducting an investigation on August 27, 2019. He was assigned to the North Mississippi Narcotics Unit. Prior to joining the sheriff's department, Voyles served as a law enforcement officer with the Mississippi Department of Transportation. He is survived by his wife, two young children, and his parents. On December 12, 2019, Panola County Constable Eula Ray ``Raye'' Hawkins, 57, was killed when his vehicle was struck by a stolen pickup truck being pursued by other officers. Constable Hawkins served in law enforcement for 29 years. He is survived by his son, who serves with the Batesville Police Department, a daughter, one grandson, and two sisters. I join the families, fellow officers, and communities of these four Mississippi officers, who dedicated themselves to bravely serving the people of my State, honoring their lives with a deep sense of gratitude for their service. My heart aches any time a law enforcement officer is lost, whether it is in the line of duty or not. Their names may not grace a national memorial, but their service still merits recognition. For instance, long-time Lawrence County Deputy Sheriff Robert Ainsworth and his wife, Paula, were among the 14 Mississippians who lost their lives in terrible tornadoes that hit my State on Easter Sunday. In his last act, Deputy Ainsworth, a Marine Corps veteran who died trying to shield his wife from harm, demonstrated the selflessness and bravery that is characteristic of so many in law enforcement. Law enforcement officers risk their lives daily to help keep us safe, and any loss of an officer profoundly affects entire communities. My admiration for the law enforcement community, who remain deeply dedicated despite the dangers of their noble profession, knows no bounds. We acknowledge their brave service and fortify our support of their work to serve and protect our families and our communities.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mrs. HYDE-SMITH
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-13-pt1-PgS2419-2
| null | 618
|
formal
|
Chicago
| null |
racist
|
At 10:02 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that the pursuant to section 201(b) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6431), and the order of the House of January 3, 2019, the Speaker appoints the following individuals on the part of the House of Representatives to the Commission on International Religious Freedom for a term effective May 14, 2020, and ending May 14, 2022: Ms. Anurima Bhargava of Chicago, Illinois and Dr. James W. Carr of Searcy, Arkansas.
|
2020-01-06
|
Unknown
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-13-pt1-PgS2419-3
| null | 619
|
formal
|
Detroit
| null |
racist
|
Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. Scott of Florida, and Mr. Cardin) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 573 Whereas Coach Donald Francis Shula (referred to in this preamble as ``Coach Shula'') was born on January 4, 1930, and grew up in Painesville, Ohio; Whereas Coach Shula's father immigrated to the United States from Hungary; Whereas Coach Shula attended Harvey High School and later played collegiate football at John Carroll University; Whereas, in 1951, the Cleveland Browns selected Coach Shula in the ninth round of the National Football League (referred to in this preamble as the ``NFL'') draft as a defensive back; Whereas, in addition to playing for the Cleveland Browns, Coach Shula also played for the Baltimore Colts and the Washington Redskins; Whereas Coach Shula-- (1) began his coaching career at the University of Virginia; (2) also coached at the University of Kentucky; and (3) coached as a defensive coordinator for the Detroit Lions; Whereas, in 1963, Coach Shula became the youngest coach in the NFL when he took the head coaching position at the Baltimore Colts; Whereas, as the head coach of the Baltimore Colts, Coach Shula-- (1) compiled a record of 71 wins, 23 losses, and 4 ties; and (2) won the NFL championship in 1968; Whereas, in 1970, Coach Shula became the head coach of the Miami Dolphins (referred to in this preamble as the ``Dolphins''); Whereas Coach Shula remained the head coach of the Dolphins for 26 seasons, took the Dolphins to 4 Super Bowls, and led the Dolphins to victory in 2 of those Super Bowls; Whereas Coach Shula led the 1972 Dolphins team to a perfect season; Whereas, in Super Bowl VII, Coach Shula led the Dolphins to victory over the Washington Redskins with a score of 14 to 7; Whereas, in Super Bowl VIII, Coach Shula led the Dolphins, the reigning Super Bowl champions, to victory over the Minnesota Vikings with a score of 24 to 7; Whereas, after 33 years of coaching, Coach Shula retired from coaching in 1995 with the NFL record for most wins by a head coach, compiling a regular season record of 328 wins, 156 losses, and 6 ties and a postseason record of 19 wins and 17 losses; Whereas Coach Shula was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1997; Whereas, following his coaching days, Coach Shula-- (1) supported many charities; (2) gave generously to his local parish; and (3) established the Don Shula Foundation to assist with breast cancer research; and Whereas Coach Shula, a loving husband, father, grandfather, son, and brother, passed away on May 4, 2020, at 90 years of age: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes the life and achievements of Pro Football Hall of Fame Coach Donald Francis Shula (referred to in this resolution as ``Coach Shula''); (2) expresses condolences to the family of Coach Shula on his passing; and (3) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to-- (A) the family of Coach Shula; and (B) the Miami Dolphins.
|
2020-01-06
|
Unknown
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-13-pt1-PgS2424-2
| null | 620
|
formal
|
Cleveland
| null |
racist
|
Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. Scott of Florida, and Mr. Cardin) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 573 Whereas Coach Donald Francis Shula (referred to in this preamble as ``Coach Shula'') was born on January 4, 1930, and grew up in Painesville, Ohio; Whereas Coach Shula's father immigrated to the United States from Hungary; Whereas Coach Shula attended Harvey High School and later played collegiate football at John Carroll University; Whereas, in 1951, the Cleveland Browns selected Coach Shula in the ninth round of the National Football League (referred to in this preamble as the ``NFL'') draft as a defensive back; Whereas, in addition to playing for the Cleveland Browns, Coach Shula also played for the Baltimore Colts and the Washington Redskins; Whereas Coach Shula-- (1) began his coaching career at the University of Virginia; (2) also coached at the University of Kentucky; and (3) coached as a defensive coordinator for the Detroit Lions; Whereas, in 1963, Coach Shula became the youngest coach in the NFL when he took the head coaching position at the Baltimore Colts; Whereas, as the head coach of the Baltimore Colts, Coach Shula-- (1) compiled a record of 71 wins, 23 losses, and 4 ties; and (2) won the NFL championship in 1968; Whereas, in 1970, Coach Shula became the head coach of the Miami Dolphins (referred to in this preamble as the ``Dolphins''); Whereas Coach Shula remained the head coach of the Dolphins for 26 seasons, took the Dolphins to 4 Super Bowls, and led the Dolphins to victory in 2 of those Super Bowls; Whereas Coach Shula led the 1972 Dolphins team to a perfect season; Whereas, in Super Bowl VII, Coach Shula led the Dolphins to victory over the Washington Redskins with a score of 14 to 7; Whereas, in Super Bowl VIII, Coach Shula led the Dolphins, the reigning Super Bowl champions, to victory over the Minnesota Vikings with a score of 24 to 7; Whereas, after 33 years of coaching, Coach Shula retired from coaching in 1995 with the NFL record for most wins by a head coach, compiling a regular season record of 328 wins, 156 losses, and 6 ties and a postseason record of 19 wins and 17 losses; Whereas Coach Shula was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1997; Whereas, following his coaching days, Coach Shula-- (1) supported many charities; (2) gave generously to his local parish; and (3) established the Don Shula Foundation to assist with breast cancer research; and Whereas Coach Shula, a loving husband, father, grandfather, son, and brother, passed away on May 4, 2020, at 90 years of age: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes the life and achievements of Pro Football Hall of Fame Coach Donald Francis Shula (referred to in this resolution as ``Coach Shula''); (2) expresses condolences to the family of Coach Shula on his passing; and (3) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to-- (A) the family of Coach Shula; and (B) the Miami Dolphins.
|
2020-01-06
|
Unknown
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-13-pt1-PgS2424-2
| null | 621
|
formal
|
Baltimore
| null |
racist
|
Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. Scott of Florida, and Mr. Cardin) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 573 Whereas Coach Donald Francis Shula (referred to in this preamble as ``Coach Shula'') was born on January 4, 1930, and grew up in Painesville, Ohio; Whereas Coach Shula's father immigrated to the United States from Hungary; Whereas Coach Shula attended Harvey High School and later played collegiate football at John Carroll University; Whereas, in 1951, the Cleveland Browns selected Coach Shula in the ninth round of the National Football League (referred to in this preamble as the ``NFL'') draft as a defensive back; Whereas, in addition to playing for the Cleveland Browns, Coach Shula also played for the Baltimore Colts and the Washington Redskins; Whereas Coach Shula-- (1) began his coaching career at the University of Virginia; (2) also coached at the University of Kentucky; and (3) coached as a defensive coordinator for the Detroit Lions; Whereas, in 1963, Coach Shula became the youngest coach in the NFL when he took the head coaching position at the Baltimore Colts; Whereas, as the head coach of the Baltimore Colts, Coach Shula-- (1) compiled a record of 71 wins, 23 losses, and 4 ties; and (2) won the NFL championship in 1968; Whereas, in 1970, Coach Shula became the head coach of the Miami Dolphins (referred to in this preamble as the ``Dolphins''); Whereas Coach Shula remained the head coach of the Dolphins for 26 seasons, took the Dolphins to 4 Super Bowls, and led the Dolphins to victory in 2 of those Super Bowls; Whereas Coach Shula led the 1972 Dolphins team to a perfect season; Whereas, in Super Bowl VII, Coach Shula led the Dolphins to victory over the Washington Redskins with a score of 14 to 7; Whereas, in Super Bowl VIII, Coach Shula led the Dolphins, the reigning Super Bowl champions, to victory over the Minnesota Vikings with a score of 24 to 7; Whereas, after 33 years of coaching, Coach Shula retired from coaching in 1995 with the NFL record for most wins by a head coach, compiling a regular season record of 328 wins, 156 losses, and 6 ties and a postseason record of 19 wins and 17 losses; Whereas Coach Shula was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1997; Whereas, following his coaching days, Coach Shula-- (1) supported many charities; (2) gave generously to his local parish; and (3) established the Don Shula Foundation to assist with breast cancer research; and Whereas Coach Shula, a loving husband, father, grandfather, son, and brother, passed away on May 4, 2020, at 90 years of age: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes the life and achievements of Pro Football Hall of Fame Coach Donald Francis Shula (referred to in this resolution as ``Coach Shula''); (2) expresses condolences to the family of Coach Shula on his passing; and (3) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to-- (A) the family of Coach Shula; and (B) the Miami Dolphins.
|
2020-01-06
|
Unknown
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-13-pt1-PgS2424-2
| null | 622
|
formal
|
the Fed
| null |
antisemitic
|
2020, AS ``NATIONAL POLICE WEEK'' Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Braun, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Murkowski, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Coons, Mr. Toomey, Mr. King, Ms. Collins, Mr. Markey, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Crapo, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Blunt, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Romney, Mr. Jones, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Burr, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Cramer, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Ernst, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Enzi, Ms. Hirono, Ms. McSally, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Portman, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Risch, Mr. Tester, Mr. Daines, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Peters, Mr. Cruz, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Rounds, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Hoeven, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Warner, Mr. Gardner, Ms. Harris, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Booker, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Casey, Mr. Paul, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Brown, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Reed, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Young, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Lee, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Loeffler, Mr. Moran, Mr. Thune, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Sasse, Mr. Roberts, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, and Mr. Cassidy) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 577 Whereas Federal, State, local, and Tribal police officers, sheriffs, and other law enforcement officers across the United States serve with valor, dignity, and integrity; Whereas law enforcement officers are charged with-- (1) pursuing justice for all individuals; and (2) performing the duties of a law enforcement officer with fidelity to the constitutional and civil rights of the public the officers serve; Whereas law enforcement officers swear an oath to uphold the public trust even though, through the performance of the duties of a law enforcement officer, the officers may become targets for senseless acts of violence; Whereas law enforcement officers have bravely continued to meet the call of duty to ensure the security of their neighborhoods and communities at the risk of their own personal safety in the time of a viral pandemic; Whereas the resolve to service is clearly demonstrated by law enforcement officers across the country who have tragically fallen ill or passed away due to complications of COVID-19 contracted in the line of duty; Whereas, in 1962, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy signed Public Law 87-726 (36 U.S.C. 136) (referred to in this preamble as the ``Joint Resolution''), which authorizes the President to proclaim May 15 of every year as ``Peace Officers Memorial Day'' in honor of the Federal, State, and local officers who have been killed, disabled, or otherwise injured in the line of duty; Whereas the Joint Resolution also authorizes the President to designate the week in which Peace Officers Memorial Day falls as ``National Police Week''; Whereas the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, dedicated on October 15, 1991, is the national monument to honor those law enforcement officers who have died in the line of duty; Whereas Peace Officers Memorial Day, 2020, honors the 185 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty during 2019, including-- (1) Brian R. Abbondandelo; (2) Jacob O. Allmendinger; (3) Luis G. Alvarez; (4) John R. Anderson IV; (5) Kelvin B. Ansari; (6) Shannon L. Barron; (7) Charles Barzydlo; (8) James J. Biello; (9) April E. Bird; (10) Scott R. Blackshaw; (11) Jose L. Blancarte; (12) James B. Boyle; (13) William L. Brewer, Jr.; (14) Christopher C.L. Brewster; (15) Spencer D. Bristol; (16) Makeem R. Brooks; (17) Steven J. Brown; (18) William R. Buechner, Jr.; (19) Carlos J. Cammon; (20) Benjamin J. Campbell; (21) Audrey P. Capra; (22) Stephen P. Carr; (23) WyTasha L. Carter; (24) Albert R. Castaneda, Jr.; (25) Yolanda Cawley; (26) Troy P. Chisum; (27) Jeffrey M. Cicora; (28) Billy F. Clardy III; (29) Natalie B. Corona; (30) Dornell Cousette; (31) Brian K. Crain; (32) Christopher E. Cranston; (33) Peter F. Curran; (34) Julius J. Dailey; (35) Jorge R. Del Rio; (36) Justin R. Derosier; (37) Sandeep S. Dhaliwal; (38) Michael O. Diamond; (39) Elmer J. Diaz; (40) Juan J. Diaz; (41) William C. Dickerson; (42) Nicolas B. Dixon; (43) Steven J. Dodson; (44) Kenneth X. Domenech; (45) Donna M. Doss; (46) Lucas B. Dowell; (47) Cooper A. Dyson; (48) Gerald W. Ellis; (49) Spencer A. Englett; (50) Jose L. Espericueta, Jr.; (51) Keith A. Ferrara; (52) John P. Ferrari; (53) Edward J. Fitzgerald; (54) David J. Fitzpatrick; (55) Gary M. Franklin; (56) Sean P. Franklin; (57) Nicholas S. Galinger; (58) Thomas J. Gallagher; (59) Matthew E. Gatti; (60) Steven G. Greco; (61) Daniel H. Groves; (62) Randy Z. Haddix; (63) Anthony R. Hanlon; (64) E. Raye Hawkins; (65) Joseph F. Heid; (66) Nathan H. Heidelberg; (67) Peter J. Herrera; (68) John D. Hetland; (69) David P. Hewitt; (70) Steven B. Hinkle; (71) Daniel D. Hinton; (72) Nathaniel Holland, Jr.; (73) Nicholas J. Hopkins; (74) Robert M. Hotten; (75) Christopher M. Hulsey; (76) Charles J. Humphry; (77) Brian D. Ishmael; (78) Bobby W. Jacobs; (79) Monty T. Johnson; (80) Paul J. Johnson; (81) Matthew R. Jones; (82) Brooke E. Jones-Story; (83) Jacob H. Keltner; (84) James W. Kennelly; (85) Stephen A. Ketchum; (86) Liquat A. Khan; (87) Michael F. Knapp; (88) Christopher J. Lambert; (89) Michael V. Langsdorf; (90) Michael S. Latu; (91) Mark Lawler; (92) William S. Leahy; (93) Gene W. Lee; (94) Jeffrey A. Lee; (95) Vincent N. Liberto, Jr.; (96) Steven L. Licon; (97) Thomas J. Lyons; (98) Matthew B. Mainieri; (99) Walter L. Mallinson; (100) Jesus A. Marrero-Martinez; (101) Daniel B. Martin; (102) Clifton J. Martinez; (103) Peter Martino; (104) Robert P. Masci; (105) Paul J. McCabe; (106) William D. McCabe; (107) Robert E. McCallister; (108) Rasheen P. McClain; (109) Bryan U. McCoy; (110) Patrick T. McGovern; (111) Robert S. McKeithen; (112) Stephen B. McLoud; (113) Jennifer Meehan; (114) Mark J. Meier; (115) Gregory V. Melita; (116) Norman D. Merkel; (117) Jose H. Meza; (118) William J. Moden; (119) Joseph B. Montijo; (120) Andre M. Moye, Jr.; (121) Brian C. Mulkeen; (122) Wayne M. Neidenberg; (123) Anthony Neri; (124) Benjamin R. Nimtz; (125) Jason H. Offner; (126) Kyle D. Olinger; (127) Vincent J. Oliva; (128) Robert Ortiz; (129) Tara C. O'Sullivan; (130) Pavlos D. Pallas; (131) Phillip E. Panzarella; (132) William G. Parker; (133) Michele T. Paul; (134) Chateri A. Payne; (135) Philip T. Perry; (136) Levy Pettway; (137) Bryan C. Pfluger; (138) Joseph L. Pidoto; (139) Debra K. Porter-Johnson; (140) James V. Quinn; (141) Carlos A. Ramirez; (142) Esmeralda P. Ramirez; (143) Stephen M. Reece; (144) Cecil D. Ridley; (145) Matthew J. Rittner; (146) Lawrence J. Rivera; (147) Pedro J. Rodriguez Mateo; (148) Joseph M. Roman; (149) Byron S. Romero; (150) Paul T. Rutherford; (151) James E. Ryan; (152) Joshua B. Ryer, Jr.; (153) Russell D. Salazar; (154) Moises Sanchez; (155) Thomas Santoro; (156) Alfred Sanyet-Perez; (157) Stephanie J. Schreurs; (158) Joseph A. Seals; (159) Michael P. Shea; (160) Jordan H. Sheldon; (161) Joseph W. Shinners; (162) Brian P. Simonsen; (163) Jerry L. Smith, Jr.; (164) Michaela E. Smith; (165) Peter R. Stephan; (166) Michael D. Stephen, Sr.; (167) Barbara J. Sullivan; (168) Kaila M. Sullivan; (169) Michael E. Teel; (170) Ryan S. Thompson; (171) Shane M. Totty; (172) Clayton J. Townsend; (173) Sean P. Tuder; (174) Manuel Vargas, Jr.; (175) Tracy L. Vickers; (176) Joshua E. Voth; (177) Jeremy A. Voyles; (178) William T. Walsh; (179) Willie H. West; (180) Steven D. Whistine; (181) Fred R. Wiercyski; (182) John A. Williams, Sr.; (183) Wade J. Williams; (184) Dale J. Woods; and (185) Eugene H. Wynn, Jr.; and Whereas, according to the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted Program of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (also known as the ``LEOKA Program''), since the beginning of 2020, 36 law enforcement officers were reported to have been killed in the line of duty: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates the week of May 10 through May 16, 2020, as ``National Police Week''; (2) expresses unwavering support for law enforcement officers across the United States in the pursuit of preserving safe and secure communities; (3) recognizes the need to ensure that law enforcement officers have the equipment, training, and resources that are necessary in order to protect the health and safety of the officers while the officers protect the public; (4) recognizes the law enforcement community for continual unseen acts of sacrifice and heroism, especially in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis faced by the United States; (5) acknowledges that police officers and other law enforcement personnel, especially those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, should be remembered and honored; (6) expresses condolences and solemn appreciation to the loved ones of each law enforcement officer who has made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty; and (7) encourages the people of the United States to observe National Police Week by honoring law enforcement personnel and promoting awareness of the essential mission that law enforcement personnel undertake in service to their communities and the United States.
|
2020-01-06
|
Unknown
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-13-pt1-PgS2425-3
| null | 623
|
formal
|
blue
| null |
antisemitic
|
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this pandemic is weighing heavily on the American people. Roughly, 1.4 million Americans have been infected, more than 80,000 have died, and unemployment has not been this high since World War II. Just a few months ago, millions of hard-working men and women were thriving and optimistic. They were making big plans across kitchen tables. Now all of that is in chaos. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve reports that nearly 4 in 10 American households that earn less than $40,000 a year had somebody get laid off in the month of March alone. This emergency is very serious, so the Senate's response has been serious. In March, Senate Republicans designed and the full Senate passed the CARES Act. It pushed trillions of dollars to working families, job creators, and medical professionals. We sent direct cash to almost 130 million Americans. We delivered hundreds of billions of dollars in paycheck protection loans to small businesses, saving tens of millions of American jobs. We helped State and local governments defray coronavirus costs. We funded healthcare providers and testing. Even now, its programs are still taking effect, still coming online, still helping. The Senate took a blank sheet of paper and turned it into the largest rescue package in history. We have taken this crisis seriously, but the House Democrats have taken a totally different approach. While we finalized the CARES Act, the House parachuted in with miscellaneous liberal demands that were completely unrelated to COVID-19--solar energy tax credits, airline emissions. One senior House Democrat called the virus a ``tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' One Senate Democratic colleague asked: ``How many times are we going to get a shot at a $1 trillion-plus program?'' They told us exactly what they were up to, so we ignored the leftwing wish list and stayed serious, and the CARES Act is still helping Americans bridge these temporary shutdowns. So let's fast-forward to today. The Democratic House is still not back in Washington. Its constitutional dutystations are still unmanned, but the Democrats cannot stop salivating over the possibilities for partisan gain. Former Vice President Biden says he sees this tragedy as an ``incredible opportunity . . . to fundamentally transform the country.'' Biden said it is an ``incredible opportunity . . . to fundamentally transform the country.'' Speaker Pelosi said: ``I see everything as an opportunity.'' A cochair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said: ``For me, the leverage is that there is enormous suffering.'' ``The leverage is that there is enormous suffering.'' There are 80,000 Americans who have died and more than 20 million who have lost their jobs. I call that a crisis; they call it leverage. This week, the Speaker published an 1,800-page seasonal catalog of leftwing oddities and called it a coronavirus relief bill. So here we go again. It includes a massive Tax Code giveaway to high earners in blue States. Working families are struggling to put food on the table, but the House Democrats are prioritizing millionaires on the coasts. It would print another round of checks--listen to this--specifically for illegal immigrants. Can you believe it? We forgot to have the Treasury Department send money to people who are here illegally. My goodness. What an oversight. Thank goodness the Democrats are on the case. The Speaker's bill also tries to use the virus as cover to implement sweeping changes to election laws that the Democrats have literally wanted for years, like forcing every single State to embrace California's sketchy ballot harvesting whether they want to or not. Then there is the cherry on top. It is the bold new policy from the Washington Democrats that will kick the coronavirus to the curb and save American families from this crisis. Here it is--new annual studies on diversity and inclusion within the cannabis industry. There is not one study but two of them. Let me say that again. The Democrats' supposed coronavirus bill includes taxpayer-funded studies to measure diversity and inclusion among the people who profit off of marijuana. The word ``cannabis'' appears in this bill 68 times--more times than the word ``job'' and 4 times as much as the word ``hire.'' Maybe that is just as well because when their proposal does try to treat the economic crisis, it proposes stifling, anti-work policies that would only make it harder for Americans to get their jobs back. For example, they literally propose to raise taxes on small business and drain more cash from Main Street during a Main Street meltdown. So maybe it is best if the House Democrats focus on cannabis studies and leave economics to the rest of us. This is a totally unserious effort. Even the mainstream media says: ``Neither this bill nor anything resembling it will ever become law. It's a Democratic wish list.'' Forget about making law; this thing even fails as a messaging bill. That is what is so remarkable. The House Democrats had a blank slate to write anything they wanted to define the modern Democratic Party--any vision for the society that they wanted--and here is what they chose: tax hikes on small businesses, giveaways to blue State millionaires, government checks for illegal immigrants, and sending diversity detectives to inspect the pot industry. The House gave itself no assignments for 2 months except to develop this proposal. Yet it still reads like the Speaker of the House pasted together some random ideas from her most liberal Members and slapped the word ``coronavirus'' on top of it--an unserious product from an unserious House majority that has spent months dealing itself out of the crisis. The House Democrats have been missing in action for months. While the Senate was passing the CARES Act, the Democratic House was on the sidelines substantively and literally. They had already gone home. Nearly 2 months later, the Senators are back at our duty stations with new precautions. We have been back for 2 weeks. We are holding major hearings on the pandemic. We are legislating and confirming nominees. Yet the House is still at home. And when it does contribute, it is not serious. The House Democrats have checked out of this crisis and left governing up to the Senate. They even intend to shatter congressional history and jam through remote voting so they can continue to be counterproductive from the comfort of their homes. Let me say that again. They even intend to shatter congressional history and jam through remote voting so they can continue to be counterproductive from the comfort of their own homes. Look, here in the real world, the Senate Republicans are working seriously to help the country reopen. The crushing unemployment figures, even with the CARES Act, show that no amount of Federal spending could substitute for the entirety of the U.S. economy. We need to be smart, and we need to be safe, but we have to find a more sustainable middle ground. This week, Chairman Alexander and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions heard from Dr. Fauci, Dr. Redfield, and other top experts on exactly this subject. There are at least two big things our Nation will need to start recovering: stepped-up testing nationwide and legal liability protections so that K-12 schools, universities, charities, and employers are not invaded by trial lawyers the instant they unlock their doors. On testing, fortunately, the Senate has already done a great deal. The executive branch and especially the States are in the driver's seat, but we have already sent billions of dollars to help scale up testing nationwide. On legal liability reform, the work lies ahead of us. As my Republican colleagues and I have made clear, strong legal protections will be a hard redline in any future legislation. That is what is happening here in the Senate--serious leadership on a serious crisis like we have been doing for months. This half of the Capitol is doing our job
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. McCONNELL
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-14-pt1-PgS2431-6
| null | 624
|
formal
|
Federal Reserve
| null |
antisemitic
|
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this pandemic is weighing heavily on the American people. Roughly, 1.4 million Americans have been infected, more than 80,000 have died, and unemployment has not been this high since World War II. Just a few months ago, millions of hard-working men and women were thriving and optimistic. They were making big plans across kitchen tables. Now all of that is in chaos. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve reports that nearly 4 in 10 American households that earn less than $40,000 a year had somebody get laid off in the month of March alone. This emergency is very serious, so the Senate's response has been serious. In March, Senate Republicans designed and the full Senate passed the CARES Act. It pushed trillions of dollars to working families, job creators, and medical professionals. We sent direct cash to almost 130 million Americans. We delivered hundreds of billions of dollars in paycheck protection loans to small businesses, saving tens of millions of American jobs. We helped State and local governments defray coronavirus costs. We funded healthcare providers and testing. Even now, its programs are still taking effect, still coming online, still helping. The Senate took a blank sheet of paper and turned it into the largest rescue package in history. We have taken this crisis seriously, but the House Democrats have taken a totally different approach. While we finalized the CARES Act, the House parachuted in with miscellaneous liberal demands that were completely unrelated to COVID-19--solar energy tax credits, airline emissions. One senior House Democrat called the virus a ``tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' One Senate Democratic colleague asked: ``How many times are we going to get a shot at a $1 trillion-plus program?'' They told us exactly what they were up to, so we ignored the leftwing wish list and stayed serious, and the CARES Act is still helping Americans bridge these temporary shutdowns. So let's fast-forward to today. The Democratic House is still not back in Washington. Its constitutional dutystations are still unmanned, but the Democrats cannot stop salivating over the possibilities for partisan gain. Former Vice President Biden says he sees this tragedy as an ``incredible opportunity . . . to fundamentally transform the country.'' Biden said it is an ``incredible opportunity . . . to fundamentally transform the country.'' Speaker Pelosi said: ``I see everything as an opportunity.'' A cochair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said: ``For me, the leverage is that there is enormous suffering.'' ``The leverage is that there is enormous suffering.'' There are 80,000 Americans who have died and more than 20 million who have lost their jobs. I call that a crisis; they call it leverage. This week, the Speaker published an 1,800-page seasonal catalog of leftwing oddities and called it a coronavirus relief bill. So here we go again. It includes a massive Tax Code giveaway to high earners in blue States. Working families are struggling to put food on the table, but the House Democrats are prioritizing millionaires on the coasts. It would print another round of checks--listen to this--specifically for illegal immigrants. Can you believe it? We forgot to have the Treasury Department send money to people who are here illegally. My goodness. What an oversight. Thank goodness the Democrats are on the case. The Speaker's bill also tries to use the virus as cover to implement sweeping changes to election laws that the Democrats have literally wanted for years, like forcing every single State to embrace California's sketchy ballot harvesting whether they want to or not. Then there is the cherry on top. It is the bold new policy from the Washington Democrats that will kick the coronavirus to the curb and save American families from this crisis. Here it is--new annual studies on diversity and inclusion within the cannabis industry. There is not one study but two of them. Let me say that again. The Democrats' supposed coronavirus bill includes taxpayer-funded studies to measure diversity and inclusion among the people who profit off of marijuana. The word ``cannabis'' appears in this bill 68 times--more times than the word ``job'' and 4 times as much as the word ``hire.'' Maybe that is just as well because when their proposal does try to treat the economic crisis, it proposes stifling, anti-work policies that would only make it harder for Americans to get their jobs back. For example, they literally propose to raise taxes on small business and drain more cash from Main Street during a Main Street meltdown. So maybe it is best if the House Democrats focus on cannabis studies and leave economics to the rest of us. This is a totally unserious effort. Even the mainstream media says: ``Neither this bill nor anything resembling it will ever become law. It's a Democratic wish list.'' Forget about making law; this thing even fails as a messaging bill. That is what is so remarkable. The House Democrats had a blank slate to write anything they wanted to define the modern Democratic Party--any vision for the society that they wanted--and here is what they chose: tax hikes on small businesses, giveaways to blue State millionaires, government checks for illegal immigrants, and sending diversity detectives to inspect the pot industry. The House gave itself no assignments for 2 months except to develop this proposal. Yet it still reads like the Speaker of the House pasted together some random ideas from her most liberal Members and slapped the word ``coronavirus'' on top of it--an unserious product from an unserious House majority that has spent months dealing itself out of the crisis. The House Democrats have been missing in action for months. While the Senate was passing the CARES Act, the Democratic House was on the sidelines substantively and literally. They had already gone home. Nearly 2 months later, the Senators are back at our duty stations with new precautions. We have been back for 2 weeks. We are holding major hearings on the pandemic. We are legislating and confirming nominees. Yet the House is still at home. And when it does contribute, it is not serious. The House Democrats have checked out of this crisis and left governing up to the Senate. They even intend to shatter congressional history and jam through remote voting so they can continue to be counterproductive from the comfort of their homes. Let me say that again. They even intend to shatter congressional history and jam through remote voting so they can continue to be counterproductive from the comfort of their own homes. Look, here in the real world, the Senate Republicans are working seriously to help the country reopen. The crushing unemployment figures, even with the CARES Act, show that no amount of Federal spending could substitute for the entirety of the U.S. economy. We need to be smart, and we need to be safe, but we have to find a more sustainable middle ground. This week, Chairman Alexander and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions heard from Dr. Fauci, Dr. Redfield, and other top experts on exactly this subject. There are at least two big things our Nation will need to start recovering: stepped-up testing nationwide and legal liability protections so that K-12 schools, universities, charities, and employers are not invaded by trial lawyers the instant they unlock their doors. On testing, fortunately, the Senate has already done a great deal. The executive branch and especially the States are in the driver's seat, but we have already sent billions of dollars to help scale up testing nationwide. On legal liability reform, the work lies ahead of us. As my Republican colleagues and I have made clear, strong legal protections will be a hard redline in any future legislation. That is what is happening here in the Senate--serious leadership on a serious crisis like we have been doing for months. This half of the Capitol is doing our job
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. McCONNELL
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-14-pt1-PgS2431-6
| null | 625
|
formal
|
the Fed
| null |
antisemitic
|
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this pandemic is weighing heavily on the American people. Roughly, 1.4 million Americans have been infected, more than 80,000 have died, and unemployment has not been this high since World War II. Just a few months ago, millions of hard-working men and women were thriving and optimistic. They were making big plans across kitchen tables. Now all of that is in chaos. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve reports that nearly 4 in 10 American households that earn less than $40,000 a year had somebody get laid off in the month of March alone. This emergency is very serious, so the Senate's response has been serious. In March, Senate Republicans designed and the full Senate passed the CARES Act. It pushed trillions of dollars to working families, job creators, and medical professionals. We sent direct cash to almost 130 million Americans. We delivered hundreds of billions of dollars in paycheck protection loans to small businesses, saving tens of millions of American jobs. We helped State and local governments defray coronavirus costs. We funded healthcare providers and testing. Even now, its programs are still taking effect, still coming online, still helping. The Senate took a blank sheet of paper and turned it into the largest rescue package in history. We have taken this crisis seriously, but the House Democrats have taken a totally different approach. While we finalized the CARES Act, the House parachuted in with miscellaneous liberal demands that were completely unrelated to COVID-19--solar energy tax credits, airline emissions. One senior House Democrat called the virus a ``tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' One Senate Democratic colleague asked: ``How many times are we going to get a shot at a $1 trillion-plus program?'' They told us exactly what they were up to, so we ignored the leftwing wish list and stayed serious, and the CARES Act is still helping Americans bridge these temporary shutdowns. So let's fast-forward to today. The Democratic House is still not back in Washington. Its constitutional dutystations are still unmanned, but the Democrats cannot stop salivating over the possibilities for partisan gain. Former Vice President Biden says he sees this tragedy as an ``incredible opportunity . . . to fundamentally transform the country.'' Biden said it is an ``incredible opportunity . . . to fundamentally transform the country.'' Speaker Pelosi said: ``I see everything as an opportunity.'' A cochair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said: ``For me, the leverage is that there is enormous suffering.'' ``The leverage is that there is enormous suffering.'' There are 80,000 Americans who have died and more than 20 million who have lost their jobs. I call that a crisis; they call it leverage. This week, the Speaker published an 1,800-page seasonal catalog of leftwing oddities and called it a coronavirus relief bill. So here we go again. It includes a massive Tax Code giveaway to high earners in blue States. Working families are struggling to put food on the table, but the House Democrats are prioritizing millionaires on the coasts. It would print another round of checks--listen to this--specifically for illegal immigrants. Can you believe it? We forgot to have the Treasury Department send money to people who are here illegally. My goodness. What an oversight. Thank goodness the Democrats are on the case. The Speaker's bill also tries to use the virus as cover to implement sweeping changes to election laws that the Democrats have literally wanted for years, like forcing every single State to embrace California's sketchy ballot harvesting whether they want to or not. Then there is the cherry on top. It is the bold new policy from the Washington Democrats that will kick the coronavirus to the curb and save American families from this crisis. Here it is--new annual studies on diversity and inclusion within the cannabis industry. There is not one study but two of them. Let me say that again. The Democrats' supposed coronavirus bill includes taxpayer-funded studies to measure diversity and inclusion among the people who profit off of marijuana. The word ``cannabis'' appears in this bill 68 times--more times than the word ``job'' and 4 times as much as the word ``hire.'' Maybe that is just as well because when their proposal does try to treat the economic crisis, it proposes stifling, anti-work policies that would only make it harder for Americans to get their jobs back. For example, they literally propose to raise taxes on small business and drain more cash from Main Street during a Main Street meltdown. So maybe it is best if the House Democrats focus on cannabis studies and leave economics to the rest of us. This is a totally unserious effort. Even the mainstream media says: ``Neither this bill nor anything resembling it will ever become law. It's a Democratic wish list.'' Forget about making law; this thing even fails as a messaging bill. That is what is so remarkable. The House Democrats had a blank slate to write anything they wanted to define the modern Democratic Party--any vision for the society that they wanted--and here is what they chose: tax hikes on small businesses, giveaways to blue State millionaires, government checks for illegal immigrants, and sending diversity detectives to inspect the pot industry. The House gave itself no assignments for 2 months except to develop this proposal. Yet it still reads like the Speaker of the House pasted together some random ideas from her most liberal Members and slapped the word ``coronavirus'' on top of it--an unserious product from an unserious House majority that has spent months dealing itself out of the crisis. The House Democrats have been missing in action for months. While the Senate was passing the CARES Act, the Democratic House was on the sidelines substantively and literally. They had already gone home. Nearly 2 months later, the Senators are back at our duty stations with new precautions. We have been back for 2 weeks. We are holding major hearings on the pandemic. We are legislating and confirming nominees. Yet the House is still at home. And when it does contribute, it is not serious. The House Democrats have checked out of this crisis and left governing up to the Senate. They even intend to shatter congressional history and jam through remote voting so they can continue to be counterproductive from the comfort of their homes. Let me say that again. They even intend to shatter congressional history and jam through remote voting so they can continue to be counterproductive from the comfort of their own homes. Look, here in the real world, the Senate Republicans are working seriously to help the country reopen. The crushing unemployment figures, even with the CARES Act, show that no amount of Federal spending could substitute for the entirety of the U.S. economy. We need to be smart, and we need to be safe, but we have to find a more sustainable middle ground. This week, Chairman Alexander and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions heard from Dr. Fauci, Dr. Redfield, and other top experts on exactly this subject. There are at least two big things our Nation will need to start recovering: stepped-up testing nationwide and legal liability protections so that K-12 schools, universities, charities, and employers are not invaded by trial lawyers the instant they unlock their doors. On testing, fortunately, the Senate has already done a great deal. The executive branch and especially the States are in the driver's seat, but we have already sent billions of dollars to help scale up testing nationwide. On legal liability reform, the work lies ahead of us. As my Republican colleagues and I have made clear, strong legal protections will be a hard redline in any future legislation. That is what is happening here in the Senate--serious leadership on a serious crisis like we have been doing for months. This half of the Capitol is doing our job
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. McCONNELL
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-14-pt1-PgS2431-6
| null | 626
|
formal
|
illegal immigrant
| null |
anti-Latino
|
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this pandemic is weighing heavily on the American people. Roughly, 1.4 million Americans have been infected, more than 80,000 have died, and unemployment has not been this high since World War II. Just a few months ago, millions of hard-working men and women were thriving and optimistic. They were making big plans across kitchen tables. Now all of that is in chaos. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve reports that nearly 4 in 10 American households that earn less than $40,000 a year had somebody get laid off in the month of March alone. This emergency is very serious, so the Senate's response has been serious. In March, Senate Republicans designed and the full Senate passed the CARES Act. It pushed trillions of dollars to working families, job creators, and medical professionals. We sent direct cash to almost 130 million Americans. We delivered hundreds of billions of dollars in paycheck protection loans to small businesses, saving tens of millions of American jobs. We helped State and local governments defray coronavirus costs. We funded healthcare providers and testing. Even now, its programs are still taking effect, still coming online, still helping. The Senate took a blank sheet of paper and turned it into the largest rescue package in history. We have taken this crisis seriously, but the House Democrats have taken a totally different approach. While we finalized the CARES Act, the House parachuted in with miscellaneous liberal demands that were completely unrelated to COVID-19--solar energy tax credits, airline emissions. One senior House Democrat called the virus a ``tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' One Senate Democratic colleague asked: ``How many times are we going to get a shot at a $1 trillion-plus program?'' They told us exactly what they were up to, so we ignored the leftwing wish list and stayed serious, and the CARES Act is still helping Americans bridge these temporary shutdowns. So let's fast-forward to today. The Democratic House is still not back in Washington. Its constitutional dutystations are still unmanned, but the Democrats cannot stop salivating over the possibilities for partisan gain. Former Vice President Biden says he sees this tragedy as an ``incredible opportunity . . . to fundamentally transform the country.'' Biden said it is an ``incredible opportunity . . . to fundamentally transform the country.'' Speaker Pelosi said: ``I see everything as an opportunity.'' A cochair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said: ``For me, the leverage is that there is enormous suffering.'' ``The leverage is that there is enormous suffering.'' There are 80,000 Americans who have died and more than 20 million who have lost their jobs. I call that a crisis; they call it leverage. This week, the Speaker published an 1,800-page seasonal catalog of leftwing oddities and called it a coronavirus relief bill. So here we go again. It includes a massive Tax Code giveaway to high earners in blue States. Working families are struggling to put food on the table, but the House Democrats are prioritizing millionaires on the coasts. It would print another round of checks--listen to this--specifically for illegal immigrants. Can you believe it? We forgot to have the Treasury Department send money to people who are here illegally. My goodness. What an oversight. Thank goodness the Democrats are on the case. The Speaker's bill also tries to use the virus as cover to implement sweeping changes to election laws that the Democrats have literally wanted for years, like forcing every single State to embrace California's sketchy ballot harvesting whether they want to or not. Then there is the cherry on top. It is the bold new policy from the Washington Democrats that will kick the coronavirus to the curb and save American families from this crisis. Here it is--new annual studies on diversity and inclusion within the cannabis industry. There is not one study but two of them. Let me say that again. The Democrats' supposed coronavirus bill includes taxpayer-funded studies to measure diversity and inclusion among the people who profit off of marijuana. The word ``cannabis'' appears in this bill 68 times--more times than the word ``job'' and 4 times as much as the word ``hire.'' Maybe that is just as well because when their proposal does try to treat the economic crisis, it proposes stifling, anti-work policies that would only make it harder for Americans to get their jobs back. For example, they literally propose to raise taxes on small business and drain more cash from Main Street during a Main Street meltdown. So maybe it is best if the House Democrats focus on cannabis studies and leave economics to the rest of us. This is a totally unserious effort. Even the mainstream media says: ``Neither this bill nor anything resembling it will ever become law. It's a Democratic wish list.'' Forget about making law; this thing even fails as a messaging bill. That is what is so remarkable. The House Democrats had a blank slate to write anything they wanted to define the modern Democratic Party--any vision for the society that they wanted--and here is what they chose: tax hikes on small businesses, giveaways to blue State millionaires, government checks for illegal immigrants, and sending diversity detectives to inspect the pot industry. The House gave itself no assignments for 2 months except to develop this proposal. Yet it still reads like the Speaker of the House pasted together some random ideas from her most liberal Members and slapped the word ``coronavirus'' on top of it--an unserious product from an unserious House majority that has spent months dealing itself out of the crisis. The House Democrats have been missing in action for months. While the Senate was passing the CARES Act, the Democratic House was on the sidelines substantively and literally. They had already gone home. Nearly 2 months later, the Senators are back at our duty stations with new precautions. We have been back for 2 weeks. We are holding major hearings on the pandemic. We are legislating and confirming nominees. Yet the House is still at home. And when it does contribute, it is not serious. The House Democrats have checked out of this crisis and left governing up to the Senate. They even intend to shatter congressional history and jam through remote voting so they can continue to be counterproductive from the comfort of their homes. Let me say that again. They even intend to shatter congressional history and jam through remote voting so they can continue to be counterproductive from the comfort of their own homes. Look, here in the real world, the Senate Republicans are working seriously to help the country reopen. The crushing unemployment figures, even with the CARES Act, show that no amount of Federal spending could substitute for the entirety of the U.S. economy. We need to be smart, and we need to be safe, but we have to find a more sustainable middle ground. This week, Chairman Alexander and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions heard from Dr. Fauci, Dr. Redfield, and other top experts on exactly this subject. There are at least two big things our Nation will need to start recovering: stepped-up testing nationwide and legal liability protections so that K-12 schools, universities, charities, and employers are not invaded by trial lawyers the instant they unlock their doors. On testing, fortunately, the Senate has already done a great deal. The executive branch and especially the States are in the driver's seat, but we have already sent billions of dollars to help scale up testing nationwide. On legal liability reform, the work lies ahead of us. As my Republican colleagues and I have made clear, strong legal protections will be a hard redline in any future legislation. That is what is happening here in the Senate--serious leadership on a serious crisis like we have been doing for months. This half of the Capitol is doing our job
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. McCONNELL
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-14-pt1-PgS2431-6
| null | 627
|
formal
|
illegal immigrants
| null |
anti-Latino
|
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this pandemic is weighing heavily on the American people. Roughly, 1.4 million Americans have been infected, more than 80,000 have died, and unemployment has not been this high since World War II. Just a few months ago, millions of hard-working men and women were thriving and optimistic. They were making big plans across kitchen tables. Now all of that is in chaos. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve reports that nearly 4 in 10 American households that earn less than $40,000 a year had somebody get laid off in the month of March alone. This emergency is very serious, so the Senate's response has been serious. In March, Senate Republicans designed and the full Senate passed the CARES Act. It pushed trillions of dollars to working families, job creators, and medical professionals. We sent direct cash to almost 130 million Americans. We delivered hundreds of billions of dollars in paycheck protection loans to small businesses, saving tens of millions of American jobs. We helped State and local governments defray coronavirus costs. We funded healthcare providers and testing. Even now, its programs are still taking effect, still coming online, still helping. The Senate took a blank sheet of paper and turned it into the largest rescue package in history. We have taken this crisis seriously, but the House Democrats have taken a totally different approach. While we finalized the CARES Act, the House parachuted in with miscellaneous liberal demands that were completely unrelated to COVID-19--solar energy tax credits, airline emissions. One senior House Democrat called the virus a ``tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' One Senate Democratic colleague asked: ``How many times are we going to get a shot at a $1 trillion-plus program?'' They told us exactly what they were up to, so we ignored the leftwing wish list and stayed serious, and the CARES Act is still helping Americans bridge these temporary shutdowns. So let's fast-forward to today. The Democratic House is still not back in Washington. Its constitutional dutystations are still unmanned, but the Democrats cannot stop salivating over the possibilities for partisan gain. Former Vice President Biden says he sees this tragedy as an ``incredible opportunity . . . to fundamentally transform the country.'' Biden said it is an ``incredible opportunity . . . to fundamentally transform the country.'' Speaker Pelosi said: ``I see everything as an opportunity.'' A cochair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said: ``For me, the leverage is that there is enormous suffering.'' ``The leverage is that there is enormous suffering.'' There are 80,000 Americans who have died and more than 20 million who have lost their jobs. I call that a crisis; they call it leverage. This week, the Speaker published an 1,800-page seasonal catalog of leftwing oddities and called it a coronavirus relief bill. So here we go again. It includes a massive Tax Code giveaway to high earners in blue States. Working families are struggling to put food on the table, but the House Democrats are prioritizing millionaires on the coasts. It would print another round of checks--listen to this--specifically for illegal immigrants. Can you believe it? We forgot to have the Treasury Department send money to people who are here illegally. My goodness. What an oversight. Thank goodness the Democrats are on the case. The Speaker's bill also tries to use the virus as cover to implement sweeping changes to election laws that the Democrats have literally wanted for years, like forcing every single State to embrace California's sketchy ballot harvesting whether they want to or not. Then there is the cherry on top. It is the bold new policy from the Washington Democrats that will kick the coronavirus to the curb and save American families from this crisis. Here it is--new annual studies on diversity and inclusion within the cannabis industry. There is not one study but two of them. Let me say that again. The Democrats' supposed coronavirus bill includes taxpayer-funded studies to measure diversity and inclusion among the people who profit off of marijuana. The word ``cannabis'' appears in this bill 68 times--more times than the word ``job'' and 4 times as much as the word ``hire.'' Maybe that is just as well because when their proposal does try to treat the economic crisis, it proposes stifling, anti-work policies that would only make it harder for Americans to get their jobs back. For example, they literally propose to raise taxes on small business and drain more cash from Main Street during a Main Street meltdown. So maybe it is best if the House Democrats focus on cannabis studies and leave economics to the rest of us. This is a totally unserious effort. Even the mainstream media says: ``Neither this bill nor anything resembling it will ever become law. It's a Democratic wish list.'' Forget about making law; this thing even fails as a messaging bill. That is what is so remarkable. The House Democrats had a blank slate to write anything they wanted to define the modern Democratic Party--any vision for the society that they wanted--and here is what they chose: tax hikes on small businesses, giveaways to blue State millionaires, government checks for illegal immigrants, and sending diversity detectives to inspect the pot industry. The House gave itself no assignments for 2 months except to develop this proposal. Yet it still reads like the Speaker of the House pasted together some random ideas from her most liberal Members and slapped the word ``coronavirus'' on top of it--an unserious product from an unserious House majority that has spent months dealing itself out of the crisis. The House Democrats have been missing in action for months. While the Senate was passing the CARES Act, the Democratic House was on the sidelines substantively and literally. They had already gone home. Nearly 2 months later, the Senators are back at our duty stations with new precautions. We have been back for 2 weeks. We are holding major hearings on the pandemic. We are legislating and confirming nominees. Yet the House is still at home. And when it does contribute, it is not serious. The House Democrats have checked out of this crisis and left governing up to the Senate. They even intend to shatter congressional history and jam through remote voting so they can continue to be counterproductive from the comfort of their homes. Let me say that again. They even intend to shatter congressional history and jam through remote voting so they can continue to be counterproductive from the comfort of their own homes. Look, here in the real world, the Senate Republicans are working seriously to help the country reopen. The crushing unemployment figures, even with the CARES Act, show that no amount of Federal spending could substitute for the entirety of the U.S. economy. We need to be smart, and we need to be safe, but we have to find a more sustainable middle ground. This week, Chairman Alexander and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions heard from Dr. Fauci, Dr. Redfield, and other top experts on exactly this subject. There are at least two big things our Nation will need to start recovering: stepped-up testing nationwide and legal liability protections so that K-12 schools, universities, charities, and employers are not invaded by trial lawyers the instant they unlock their doors. On testing, fortunately, the Senate has already done a great deal. The executive branch and especially the States are in the driver's seat, but we have already sent billions of dollars to help scale up testing nationwide. On legal liability reform, the work lies ahead of us. As my Republican colleagues and I have made clear, strong legal protections will be a hard redline in any future legislation. That is what is happening here in the Senate--serious leadership on a serious crisis like we have been doing for months. This half of the Capitol is doing our job
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. McCONNELL
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-14-pt1-PgS2431-6
| null | 628
|
formal
|
single
| null |
homophobic
|
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this pandemic is weighing heavily on the American people. Roughly, 1.4 million Americans have been infected, more than 80,000 have died, and unemployment has not been this high since World War II. Just a few months ago, millions of hard-working men and women were thriving and optimistic. They were making big plans across kitchen tables. Now all of that is in chaos. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve reports that nearly 4 in 10 American households that earn less than $40,000 a year had somebody get laid off in the month of March alone. This emergency is very serious, so the Senate's response has been serious. In March, Senate Republicans designed and the full Senate passed the CARES Act. It pushed trillions of dollars to working families, job creators, and medical professionals. We sent direct cash to almost 130 million Americans. We delivered hundreds of billions of dollars in paycheck protection loans to small businesses, saving tens of millions of American jobs. We helped State and local governments defray coronavirus costs. We funded healthcare providers and testing. Even now, its programs are still taking effect, still coming online, still helping. The Senate took a blank sheet of paper and turned it into the largest rescue package in history. We have taken this crisis seriously, but the House Democrats have taken a totally different approach. While we finalized the CARES Act, the House parachuted in with miscellaneous liberal demands that were completely unrelated to COVID-19--solar energy tax credits, airline emissions. One senior House Democrat called the virus a ``tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' One Senate Democratic colleague asked: ``How many times are we going to get a shot at a $1 trillion-plus program?'' They told us exactly what they were up to, so we ignored the leftwing wish list and stayed serious, and the CARES Act is still helping Americans bridge these temporary shutdowns. So let's fast-forward to today. The Democratic House is still not back in Washington. Its constitutional dutystations are still unmanned, but the Democrats cannot stop salivating over the possibilities for partisan gain. Former Vice President Biden says he sees this tragedy as an ``incredible opportunity . . . to fundamentally transform the country.'' Biden said it is an ``incredible opportunity . . . to fundamentally transform the country.'' Speaker Pelosi said: ``I see everything as an opportunity.'' A cochair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said: ``For me, the leverage is that there is enormous suffering.'' ``The leverage is that there is enormous suffering.'' There are 80,000 Americans who have died and more than 20 million who have lost their jobs. I call that a crisis; they call it leverage. This week, the Speaker published an 1,800-page seasonal catalog of leftwing oddities and called it a coronavirus relief bill. So here we go again. It includes a massive Tax Code giveaway to high earners in blue States. Working families are struggling to put food on the table, but the House Democrats are prioritizing millionaires on the coasts. It would print another round of checks--listen to this--specifically for illegal immigrants. Can you believe it? We forgot to have the Treasury Department send money to people who are here illegally. My goodness. What an oversight. Thank goodness the Democrats are on the case. The Speaker's bill also tries to use the virus as cover to implement sweeping changes to election laws that the Democrats have literally wanted for years, like forcing every single State to embrace California's sketchy ballot harvesting whether they want to or not. Then there is the cherry on top. It is the bold new policy from the Washington Democrats that will kick the coronavirus to the curb and save American families from this crisis. Here it is--new annual studies on diversity and inclusion within the cannabis industry. There is not one study but two of them. Let me say that again. The Democrats' supposed coronavirus bill includes taxpayer-funded studies to measure diversity and inclusion among the people who profit off of marijuana. The word ``cannabis'' appears in this bill 68 times--more times than the word ``job'' and 4 times as much as the word ``hire.'' Maybe that is just as well because when their proposal does try to treat the economic crisis, it proposes stifling, anti-work policies that would only make it harder for Americans to get their jobs back. For example, they literally propose to raise taxes on small business and drain more cash from Main Street during a Main Street meltdown. So maybe it is best if the House Democrats focus on cannabis studies and leave economics to the rest of us. This is a totally unserious effort. Even the mainstream media says: ``Neither this bill nor anything resembling it will ever become law. It's a Democratic wish list.'' Forget about making law; this thing even fails as a messaging bill. That is what is so remarkable. The House Democrats had a blank slate to write anything they wanted to define the modern Democratic Party--any vision for the society that they wanted--and here is what they chose: tax hikes on small businesses, giveaways to blue State millionaires, government checks for illegal immigrants, and sending diversity detectives to inspect the pot industry. The House gave itself no assignments for 2 months except to develop this proposal. Yet it still reads like the Speaker of the House pasted together some random ideas from her most liberal Members and slapped the word ``coronavirus'' on top of it--an unserious product from an unserious House majority that has spent months dealing itself out of the crisis. The House Democrats have been missing in action for months. While the Senate was passing the CARES Act, the Democratic House was on the sidelines substantively and literally. They had already gone home. Nearly 2 months later, the Senators are back at our duty stations with new precautions. We have been back for 2 weeks. We are holding major hearings on the pandemic. We are legislating and confirming nominees. Yet the House is still at home. And when it does contribute, it is not serious. The House Democrats have checked out of this crisis and left governing up to the Senate. They even intend to shatter congressional history and jam through remote voting so they can continue to be counterproductive from the comfort of their homes. Let me say that again. They even intend to shatter congressional history and jam through remote voting so they can continue to be counterproductive from the comfort of their own homes. Look, here in the real world, the Senate Republicans are working seriously to help the country reopen. The crushing unemployment figures, even with the CARES Act, show that no amount of Federal spending could substitute for the entirety of the U.S. economy. We need to be smart, and we need to be safe, but we have to find a more sustainable middle ground. This week, Chairman Alexander and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions heard from Dr. Fauci, Dr. Redfield, and other top experts on exactly this subject. There are at least two big things our Nation will need to start recovering: stepped-up testing nationwide and legal liability protections so that K-12 schools, universities, charities, and employers are not invaded by trial lawyers the instant they unlock their doors. On testing, fortunately, the Senate has already done a great deal. The executive branch and especially the States are in the driver's seat, but we have already sent billions of dollars to help scale up testing nationwide. On legal liability reform, the work lies ahead of us. As my Republican colleagues and I have made clear, strong legal protections will be a hard redline in any future legislation. That is what is happening here in the Senate--serious leadership on a serious crisis like we have been doing for months. This half of the Capitol is doing our job
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. McCONNELL
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-14-pt1-PgS2431-6
| null | 629
|
formal
|
working families
| null |
racist
|
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this pandemic is weighing heavily on the American people. Roughly, 1.4 million Americans have been infected, more than 80,000 have died, and unemployment has not been this high since World War II. Just a few months ago, millions of hard-working men and women were thriving and optimistic. They were making big plans across kitchen tables. Now all of that is in chaos. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve reports that nearly 4 in 10 American households that earn less than $40,000 a year had somebody get laid off in the month of March alone. This emergency is very serious, so the Senate's response has been serious. In March, Senate Republicans designed and the full Senate passed the CARES Act. It pushed trillions of dollars to working families, job creators, and medical professionals. We sent direct cash to almost 130 million Americans. We delivered hundreds of billions of dollars in paycheck protection loans to small businesses, saving tens of millions of American jobs. We helped State and local governments defray coronavirus costs. We funded healthcare providers and testing. Even now, its programs are still taking effect, still coming online, still helping. The Senate took a blank sheet of paper and turned it into the largest rescue package in history. We have taken this crisis seriously, but the House Democrats have taken a totally different approach. While we finalized the CARES Act, the House parachuted in with miscellaneous liberal demands that were completely unrelated to COVID-19--solar energy tax credits, airline emissions. One senior House Democrat called the virus a ``tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' One Senate Democratic colleague asked: ``How many times are we going to get a shot at a $1 trillion-plus program?'' They told us exactly what they were up to, so we ignored the leftwing wish list and stayed serious, and the CARES Act is still helping Americans bridge these temporary shutdowns. So let's fast-forward to today. The Democratic House is still not back in Washington. Its constitutional dutystations are still unmanned, but the Democrats cannot stop salivating over the possibilities for partisan gain. Former Vice President Biden says he sees this tragedy as an ``incredible opportunity . . . to fundamentally transform the country.'' Biden said it is an ``incredible opportunity . . . to fundamentally transform the country.'' Speaker Pelosi said: ``I see everything as an opportunity.'' A cochair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said: ``For me, the leverage is that there is enormous suffering.'' ``The leverage is that there is enormous suffering.'' There are 80,000 Americans who have died and more than 20 million who have lost their jobs. I call that a crisis; they call it leverage. This week, the Speaker published an 1,800-page seasonal catalog of leftwing oddities and called it a coronavirus relief bill. So here we go again. It includes a massive Tax Code giveaway to high earners in blue States. Working families are struggling to put food on the table, but the House Democrats are prioritizing millionaires on the coasts. It would print another round of checks--listen to this--specifically for illegal immigrants. Can you believe it? We forgot to have the Treasury Department send money to people who are here illegally. My goodness. What an oversight. Thank goodness the Democrats are on the case. The Speaker's bill also tries to use the virus as cover to implement sweeping changes to election laws that the Democrats have literally wanted for years, like forcing every single State to embrace California's sketchy ballot harvesting whether they want to or not. Then there is the cherry on top. It is the bold new policy from the Washington Democrats that will kick the coronavirus to the curb and save American families from this crisis. Here it is--new annual studies on diversity and inclusion within the cannabis industry. There is not one study but two of them. Let me say that again. The Democrats' supposed coronavirus bill includes taxpayer-funded studies to measure diversity and inclusion among the people who profit off of marijuana. The word ``cannabis'' appears in this bill 68 times--more times than the word ``job'' and 4 times as much as the word ``hire.'' Maybe that is just as well because when their proposal does try to treat the economic crisis, it proposes stifling, anti-work policies that would only make it harder for Americans to get their jobs back. For example, they literally propose to raise taxes on small business and drain more cash from Main Street during a Main Street meltdown. So maybe it is best if the House Democrats focus on cannabis studies and leave economics to the rest of us. This is a totally unserious effort. Even the mainstream media says: ``Neither this bill nor anything resembling it will ever become law. It's a Democratic wish list.'' Forget about making law; this thing even fails as a messaging bill. That is what is so remarkable. The House Democrats had a blank slate to write anything they wanted to define the modern Democratic Party--any vision for the society that they wanted--and here is what they chose: tax hikes on small businesses, giveaways to blue State millionaires, government checks for illegal immigrants, and sending diversity detectives to inspect the pot industry. The House gave itself no assignments for 2 months except to develop this proposal. Yet it still reads like the Speaker of the House pasted together some random ideas from her most liberal Members and slapped the word ``coronavirus'' on top of it--an unserious product from an unserious House majority that has spent months dealing itself out of the crisis. The House Democrats have been missing in action for months. While the Senate was passing the CARES Act, the Democratic House was on the sidelines substantively and literally. They had already gone home. Nearly 2 months later, the Senators are back at our duty stations with new precautions. We have been back for 2 weeks. We are holding major hearings on the pandemic. We are legislating and confirming nominees. Yet the House is still at home. And when it does contribute, it is not serious. The House Democrats have checked out of this crisis and left governing up to the Senate. They even intend to shatter congressional history and jam through remote voting so they can continue to be counterproductive from the comfort of their homes. Let me say that again. They even intend to shatter congressional history and jam through remote voting so they can continue to be counterproductive from the comfort of their own homes. Look, here in the real world, the Senate Republicans are working seriously to help the country reopen. The crushing unemployment figures, even with the CARES Act, show that no amount of Federal spending could substitute for the entirety of the U.S. economy. We need to be smart, and we need to be safe, but we have to find a more sustainable middle ground. This week, Chairman Alexander and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions heard from Dr. Fauci, Dr. Redfield, and other top experts on exactly this subject. There are at least two big things our Nation will need to start recovering: stepped-up testing nationwide and legal liability protections so that K-12 schools, universities, charities, and employers are not invaded by trial lawyers the instant they unlock their doors. On testing, fortunately, the Senate has already done a great deal. The executive branch and especially the States are in the driver's seat, but we have already sent billions of dollars to help scale up testing nationwide. On legal liability reform, the work lies ahead of us. As my Republican colleagues and I have made clear, strong legal protections will be a hard redline in any future legislation. That is what is happening here in the Senate--serious leadership on a serious crisis like we have been doing for months. This half of the Capitol is doing our job
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. McCONNELL
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-14-pt1-PgS2431-6
| null | 630
|
formal
|
blue
| null |
antisemitic
|
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge the Senate to immediately take action to address the issue of elections and specifically to address technical changes to the $400 million in election security funding passed in the CARES Act and to talk about the coronavirus threat to our democracy itself. Sixteen States have already postponed their Presidential primaries or transitioned their primaries to almost entirely voting by mail. We have seen Republican and Democratic Governors across the country, from States like West Virginia, Indiana--the Presiding Officer's State--New York, and Kentucky, issue waivers allowing all voters to cast their ballots by mail during the pandemic. This includes States that used to have requirements that you have to give a reason to even get a mail-in ballot to vote from home. Both Democratic and Republican Governors have waived it--not in every State but in a number of States. While it is important that individual States are taking action to protect voters during this pandemic, it is the responsibility of us, of Congress, to ensure that States have the funds they need to make our elections more resilient and to make sure voters don't have to risk their health to cast their ballots. We must do this because, as we have seen over the last several weeks, not all States are doing everything they can to protect voters. That is sad, but it is true. What is coming before us in the fall is a national election. Just yesterday, we learned that the attorney general of Texas has asked the Texas Supreme Court to stop county election officials from letting voters who are afraid of getting the coronavirus to vote by mail. He basically went to court and said that the counties that are giving out these ballots should stop. He tried, he tried, and he is continuing to try to stop them from simply sending out ballots to voters who are afraid to vote in person. Some of them have preexisting conditions. Some of them are veterans who served our country. Some of them are seniors. Basically, in this one State--by the way, there are other things going on in other States--the attorney general is trying to stop them from actually voting from home. Under Texas law, you have to have an excuse in order to vote by mail. This pandemic, as we know, has killed more than 85,000 Americans. Local officials in Texas have told the voters that the coronavirus--they have looked at the law and said that it is a valid excuse to request a mail-in ballot. I guess it is. I would think it is. But the Texas attorney general disagrees and has asked the Texas Supreme Court to stop these local election officials from sending voters a mail-in ballot. That is a disgrace. We shouldn't be playing politics with people's lives. Even the most cynical Americans believe that. They know people play politics all the time, but they don't think you should play it with their lives. We know from what happened in Wisconsin that people who show up to vote during this crisis are, in fact, risking their health if precautions are not taken. A little over a month ago, both Democratic and Republican voters and Independent voters in Wisconsin stood for hours in the cold and the rain, wearing garbage bags and homemade masks, in order to cast their votes. There were just 5 polling locations open in Milwaukee instead of the usual 180 and 2 in Green Bay instead of the usual 30, and two-thirds of Wisconsin's African-American voters live in Milwaukee. There is no question that this vast reduction in polling places, without there being the adequate time to transition to mail-in voting, ended up disenfranchising voters, particularly in the case of African-American voters. At the same time, we saw people trying to vote in whatever way they could. They tried to mail in their ballots even when it was at the last minute. Now health officials say that more than 67 people in Wisconsin may have become infected with the coronavirus as a result of that election. This is unacceptable. No one should have to choose between exercising the right to vote and protecting the health of themselves and their loved ones. What happened in Wisconsin will be forever etched in the memory of our Nation. We can't allow this to happen again. In the face of this, yesterday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court actually struck down the Governor's stay-at-home order. We should actually be taking steps forward now instead of backward. Public health experts have warned of the possibility of another, more serious outbreak of this virus in the fall. Congress must act now to give States the funding they need. We know the States are strapped--that every single State in this country is strapped. Even if we were to do nothing here, we would know there are going to be States that are going to get humongous requests for mail-in ballots that they have never gotten before. We know that in the State of Wisconsin, Senator Johnson's State. It is traditionally a State in which about 6 percent of the people vote by mail. Next-door, in my home State of Minnesota, it is 25 percent. Yes, it is more, but we know it is probably going to at least double--and more--no matter what party you are in. This is why the Republican Governors are asking for money. They may not agree with everything in my bill, but so many of them are asking for funding to be able to help them send out those ballots and send out the postage so as to keep their polling places open, say, for 1 week, 2 weeks, or, we think, 20 days in advance so that people could actually vote and not congregate in one location. That is why this is happening right now. Nearly 2 months ago, I introduced legislation, the Natural Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act, with Senator Wyden, along with 35 of my colleagues. The bill would simply ensure that every voter could cast a ballot by mail, that those who need it could have expanded access to early in-person voting, and that States could have the funding and resources that are necessary to safely administer elections. This week, the House introduced the COVID 4 bill, the fourth COVID relief package, the HEROES Act. It contains the election reforms found in my legislation as well as $3.6 billion to help States protect our elections from COVID-19. That is because mailing mail-in ballots all over the country is going to cost some change. We know that. Yet what is the alternative? Is it telling veterans who served on the battlefield in World War II, like the one I heard about yesterday, that they can't vote or that they have to stand in line? What is the alternative--telling seniors they have to stand in line? No, that is not a good alternative. The alternative is to make sure we expand mail-in ballots. I know negotiations will occur over the coming days regarding the next relief package. I look forward to working with my Democratic and Republican colleagues. I see the chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration is here, Senator Blunt. I look forward to working with him just as we have recently done on remote committee hearings, which have actually, by all accounts, gone pretty well in the Senate over the last few weeks. I am here today to push for a change that we know needs to be done, and that is to make some changes to make sure the first grouping of money we got--the $400 million of emergency funding in the first bill--can get out to the States, because of some changes that were made to the original proposal that have made it hard for some of our States to be able to get that money out. There is a matching requirement, and we see it already playing out. Utah and Oklahoma have indicated they will only be able to access a portion of the funding they have been provided because they can't come up with the full matching requirement. Florida has not yet accessed the funds at all because it is working to see if its legislature can accommodate the matched funding. These are all things we have to work on for this forthcoming legislation, as well as to look at what we did in the first package. There are also issues with the reporting requirements in the bill, but the last thing we want to do is to put an undue burden on the States. What I really want to focus on now, at the end of my remarks, is the need to pass the legislation in front of us--and I know it will be negotiated--to make sure that we fund and help ourStates fund our elections. Let's dispel the notion that voting at home is somehow a partisan issue. One of the States with the highest number of mail-in ballots is the State of Utah. It is not exactly a bright-blue State. Another State that has a very high number of people voting from home is the State of Colorado. This is a State that tends to be a purple State. Then we have blue States, like Oregon and Washington. Then we have a State like Arizona that, again, has a high number of people voting by mail. On the other end are States that don't have as many people voting by mail, but we have a mixture of States too. New York is at like 5 percent right now. Then we have a number of States, like Alabama, that don't have a lot of people voting by mail. We don't think--at least I don't think--that every single person is going to vote by mail in the election this November. The key is to give them options and to be able to work with our States so that, if we do provide funding--and I am so hopeful that we will be able to come to some kind of agreement here--they can use that money to expand their votes by mail, because we know their citizens are going to request it, and also to make sure voting on election day will be safe. There are ways to do that by encouraging more people, if they don't want to vote by mail, to vote early so fewer people will be there on the same day. What do we see when we look at this? A recent poll shows that in some of the key States across the country, both Republican and Democratic voters--70 to 80 percent of them--want to be able to vote by mail. We have Governors in States like New Hampshire--Republican Governors--in Maryland, and in Ohio who want to vote by mail. That is the way they want to go. We have a secretary of state who is a Republican in the State of Washington who wants to vote by mail. Her entire State basically votes by mail right now, and they are good people who can talk about why this is working for them and how we can make it work but only if they have the funds. We are not going to be able to give them the funds in, say, October and then be able to make sure this has happened. In conclusion, 17 States still have Presidential primaries, and numerous others have primaries for other Federal offices, and, of course, we have the general election on November 3, which is less than 6 months away. We cannot let more Americans experience what we have just seen happen in Wisconsin with the garbage bags, with the homemade masks, with the people getting off work at the hospitals and standing in line. Nobody should have to choose between one's health and one's right to vote. I am committed to securing additional funding in the upcoming relief package, but we have fixes that we must make to the original funding that we made in the first bill, in the first piece of legislation, and we need to get that money out to our election officials today For these reasons, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of a bill at the desk to modify the provisions on funding for election security grants. I further ask that the bill be considered read three times and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
|
2020-01-06
|
Ms. KLOBUCHAR
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-14-pt1-PgS2442
| null | 631
|
formal
|
single
| null |
homophobic
|
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge the Senate to immediately take action to address the issue of elections and specifically to address technical changes to the $400 million in election security funding passed in the CARES Act and to talk about the coronavirus threat to our democracy itself. Sixteen States have already postponed their Presidential primaries or transitioned their primaries to almost entirely voting by mail. We have seen Republican and Democratic Governors across the country, from States like West Virginia, Indiana--the Presiding Officer's State--New York, and Kentucky, issue waivers allowing all voters to cast their ballots by mail during the pandemic. This includes States that used to have requirements that you have to give a reason to even get a mail-in ballot to vote from home. Both Democratic and Republican Governors have waived it--not in every State but in a number of States. While it is important that individual States are taking action to protect voters during this pandemic, it is the responsibility of us, of Congress, to ensure that States have the funds they need to make our elections more resilient and to make sure voters don't have to risk their health to cast their ballots. We must do this because, as we have seen over the last several weeks, not all States are doing everything they can to protect voters. That is sad, but it is true. What is coming before us in the fall is a national election. Just yesterday, we learned that the attorney general of Texas has asked the Texas Supreme Court to stop county election officials from letting voters who are afraid of getting the coronavirus to vote by mail. He basically went to court and said that the counties that are giving out these ballots should stop. He tried, he tried, and he is continuing to try to stop them from simply sending out ballots to voters who are afraid to vote in person. Some of them have preexisting conditions. Some of them are veterans who served our country. Some of them are seniors. Basically, in this one State--by the way, there are other things going on in other States--the attorney general is trying to stop them from actually voting from home. Under Texas law, you have to have an excuse in order to vote by mail. This pandemic, as we know, has killed more than 85,000 Americans. Local officials in Texas have told the voters that the coronavirus--they have looked at the law and said that it is a valid excuse to request a mail-in ballot. I guess it is. I would think it is. But the Texas attorney general disagrees and has asked the Texas Supreme Court to stop these local election officials from sending voters a mail-in ballot. That is a disgrace. We shouldn't be playing politics with people's lives. Even the most cynical Americans believe that. They know people play politics all the time, but they don't think you should play it with their lives. We know from what happened in Wisconsin that people who show up to vote during this crisis are, in fact, risking their health if precautions are not taken. A little over a month ago, both Democratic and Republican voters and Independent voters in Wisconsin stood for hours in the cold and the rain, wearing garbage bags and homemade masks, in order to cast their votes. There were just 5 polling locations open in Milwaukee instead of the usual 180 and 2 in Green Bay instead of the usual 30, and two-thirds of Wisconsin's African-American voters live in Milwaukee. There is no question that this vast reduction in polling places, without there being the adequate time to transition to mail-in voting, ended up disenfranchising voters, particularly in the case of African-American voters. At the same time, we saw people trying to vote in whatever way they could. They tried to mail in their ballots even when it was at the last minute. Now health officials say that more than 67 people in Wisconsin may have become infected with the coronavirus as a result of that election. This is unacceptable. No one should have to choose between exercising the right to vote and protecting the health of themselves and their loved ones. What happened in Wisconsin will be forever etched in the memory of our Nation. We can't allow this to happen again. In the face of this, yesterday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court actually struck down the Governor's stay-at-home order. We should actually be taking steps forward now instead of backward. Public health experts have warned of the possibility of another, more serious outbreak of this virus in the fall. Congress must act now to give States the funding they need. We know the States are strapped--that every single State in this country is strapped. Even if we were to do nothing here, we would know there are going to be States that are going to get humongous requests for mail-in ballots that they have never gotten before. We know that in the State of Wisconsin, Senator Johnson's State. It is traditionally a State in which about 6 percent of the people vote by mail. Next-door, in my home State of Minnesota, it is 25 percent. Yes, it is more, but we know it is probably going to at least double--and more--no matter what party you are in. This is why the Republican Governors are asking for money. They may not agree with everything in my bill, but so many of them are asking for funding to be able to help them send out those ballots and send out the postage so as to keep their polling places open, say, for 1 week, 2 weeks, or, we think, 20 days in advance so that people could actually vote and not congregate in one location. That is why this is happening right now. Nearly 2 months ago, I introduced legislation, the Natural Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act, with Senator Wyden, along with 35 of my colleagues. The bill would simply ensure that every voter could cast a ballot by mail, that those who need it could have expanded access to early in-person voting, and that States could have the funding and resources that are necessary to safely administer elections. This week, the House introduced the COVID 4 bill, the fourth COVID relief package, the HEROES Act. It contains the election reforms found in my legislation as well as $3.6 billion to help States protect our elections from COVID-19. That is because mailing mail-in ballots all over the country is going to cost some change. We know that. Yet what is the alternative? Is it telling veterans who served on the battlefield in World War II, like the one I heard about yesterday, that they can't vote or that they have to stand in line? What is the alternative--telling seniors they have to stand in line? No, that is not a good alternative. The alternative is to make sure we expand mail-in ballots. I know negotiations will occur over the coming days regarding the next relief package. I look forward to working with my Democratic and Republican colleagues. I see the chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration is here, Senator Blunt. I look forward to working with him just as we have recently done on remote committee hearings, which have actually, by all accounts, gone pretty well in the Senate over the last few weeks. I am here today to push for a change that we know needs to be done, and that is to make some changes to make sure the first grouping of money we got--the $400 million of emergency funding in the first bill--can get out to the States, because of some changes that were made to the original proposal that have made it hard for some of our States to be able to get that money out. There is a matching requirement, and we see it already playing out. Utah and Oklahoma have indicated they will only be able to access a portion of the funding they have been provided because they can't come up with the full matching requirement. Florida has not yet accessed the funds at all because it is working to see if its legislature can accommodate the matched funding. These are all things we have to work on for this forthcoming legislation, as well as to look at what we did in the first package. There are also issues with the reporting requirements in the bill, but the last thing we want to do is to put an undue burden on the States. What I really want to focus on now, at the end of my remarks, is the need to pass the legislation in front of us--and I know it will be negotiated--to make sure that we fund and help ourStates fund our elections. Let's dispel the notion that voting at home is somehow a partisan issue. One of the States with the highest number of mail-in ballots is the State of Utah. It is not exactly a bright-blue State. Another State that has a very high number of people voting from home is the State of Colorado. This is a State that tends to be a purple State. Then we have blue States, like Oregon and Washington. Then we have a State like Arizona that, again, has a high number of people voting by mail. On the other end are States that don't have as many people voting by mail, but we have a mixture of States too. New York is at like 5 percent right now. Then we have a number of States, like Alabama, that don't have a lot of people voting by mail. We don't think--at least I don't think--that every single person is going to vote by mail in the election this November. The key is to give them options and to be able to work with our States so that, if we do provide funding--and I am so hopeful that we will be able to come to some kind of agreement here--they can use that money to expand their votes by mail, because we know their citizens are going to request it, and also to make sure voting on election day will be safe. There are ways to do that by encouraging more people, if they don't want to vote by mail, to vote early so fewer people will be there on the same day. What do we see when we look at this? A recent poll shows that in some of the key States across the country, both Republican and Democratic voters--70 to 80 percent of them--want to be able to vote by mail. We have Governors in States like New Hampshire--Republican Governors--in Maryland, and in Ohio who want to vote by mail. That is the way they want to go. We have a secretary of state who is a Republican in the State of Washington who wants to vote by mail. Her entire State basically votes by mail right now, and they are good people who can talk about why this is working for them and how we can make it work but only if they have the funds. We are not going to be able to give them the funds in, say, October and then be able to make sure this has happened. In conclusion, 17 States still have Presidential primaries, and numerous others have primaries for other Federal offices, and, of course, we have the general election on November 3, which is less than 6 months away. We cannot let more Americans experience what we have just seen happen in Wisconsin with the garbage bags, with the homemade masks, with the people getting off work at the hospitals and standing in line. Nobody should have to choose between one's health and one's right to vote. I am committed to securing additional funding in the upcoming relief package, but we have fixes that we must make to the original funding that we made in the first bill, in the first piece of legislation, and we need to get that money out to our election officials today For these reasons, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of a bill at the desk to modify the provisions on funding for election security grants. I further ask that the bill be considered read three times and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
|
2020-01-06
|
Ms. KLOBUCHAR
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-14-pt1-PgS2442
| null | 632
|
formal
|
Back the Blue
| null |
racist
|
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, this is National Police Week. It is one of the weeks that I always look forward to. For years now, it has been an opportunity to spend time with people who protect us--who protect all of us. We get a chance each day to say thank you to the Capitol Police, who work here at the Capitol. As the chairman of the Law Enforcement Caucus, I have lots of opportunities in our State to see officers in groups and one at a time, and I always try to be thankful to them when I see them. Yet this is a time every year when we get a chance to see people from all over the country come to Washington, and it is a chance for us to say thank you to them and thank you to their families. This year in particular, Chief Jon Belmar--the just recently retiring chief at the St. Louis County Police Department and good friend who was always there for advice, always brought a big contingent of officers to Police Week. So I am thinking about him and of not seeing him at Police Week in Washington. I am also thinking about the new chief of the St. Louis County Police Department, Chief Mary Barton. This is a county of over a million people, so it is a substantial job. It is a place to really affect how police work is done. I look forward to spending time with Chief Barton as she moves forward with what she can do to build on what has happened in the department over the years. Like so much else this year, Police Week is different than it has been before. There are no sounds of hundreds of motorcycles going down the streets of Washington as we celebrate the week. There are no groups of law enforcement officers or police vehicles from all over the country coming here. I am grateful for them. They protectour safety. This is a job wherein, every day when you leave home, you have no idea what events may come before you that day, and, frankly, your family has no idea what may happen that day. I have told a number of officers, in thinking about their families, including the officers who serve here at the Capitol, that they generally have some sense as to whether they are in a moment that could lead to danger or not beyond the normal readiness to serve us but that their families, with their not being with them when they are at work, have to wonder over and over again during the day what threat may come to the person about whom they care so much as that person protects others. Each year, one of the memorable events of National Police Week is the candlelight vigil that is held at the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial a few blocks from here. We gather there annually to hear the names of officers who have lost their lives and to bear witness to and be grateful for their service. Sadly, in the past year, Missouri has lost three dedicated officers. Last June, Lakeshire Chief of Police Wayne Neidenberg passed away after assisting at the scene of a rollover crash in O'Fallon, MO. Chief Neidenberg had stopped at the scene on his way home, called for assistance, and proceeded on after the situation was stabilized, but before he got out of his car at home, he had a heart attack. We lost Chief Neidenberg at that moment. He spent his entire career in law enforcement. He served in both the St. Louis County Police Department and in the Lakeshire Police Department. He was an Army veteran. He is survived by Ardell, his wife; Cori, his daughter; and his three sons, Matthew, Darek, and Aaron. On Sunday, June 23, North County Police Cooperative Officer Michael Langsdorf responded to a complaint of check fraud at a local business in Wellston, MO. The man who has been charged with his murder shot Officer Langsdorf after a struggle inside the store. He had served with the department for only 3 months, but before that, for 17 years, he had been part of the St. Louis City Metropolitan Police force. At his memorial service, Officer Langsdorf's son, Kaleb, remembered his dad this way: They say never to meet your heroes because you'll end up disappointed. Well, I had the chance to be raised by mine, and he never disappointed. He taught me that a life of rescuing, defending and serving is the only life worth living. In addition to Kaleb, Officer Langsdorf is survived by Kim, his fiancee; by Olivia, his daughter; and by his future stepchildren, Devin and Kaitlyn. Officer Christopher Walsh joined the Springfield Police Department in 2016. On the evening of Sunday, March 15 of this year, Officer Walsh responded to an active shooter situation at a convenience store. The shooter had opened fire in the store, killing three people and injuring a fourth person. Officer Walsh rushed into harm's way to protect others. The shooter opened fire on Officer Walsh and killed him. His fellow officer, Josiah Overton, was injured in the same attack. Officer Walsh was fatally wounded and died the next day. He was a U.S. Army Reservist. During his 14 years of service in the Reserves, he completed tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sheri, his wife, and Morgan, their daughter, will live with his loss for the rest of their lives. Let me share a passage from Chris's obituary. Chris, by the way, was the first Springfield officer of the town I live in to be killed on duty since the 1930s. It is a great city with the great, good fortune of its officers' managing to do their jobs without having a loss like this, but we had one this year. The quote from his obituary reads: Christopher Ryan Walsh, a man devoid of vanity and devoted to the service and to the welfare of others, would hope that out of these tragic circumstances something beautiful could take root in all of our hearts. Chris would hope that his memory would serve as an example to spur small kindnesses and acts of devotion and service to all of our community, friends and loved ones, to look past the things that separate us and to focus on the things that unite us. So Police Week is exactly the time to think about the things that unite us, to think about these officers and their courage, to think about their acts of devotion and service as we remember them. Congress wants to make sure that law enforcement officers have the support they need and never get into a situation without the resources needed to back them up. I am honored to serve as cochairman of the bipartisan Senate Law Enforcement Caucus, which advances legislation that supports the efforts of law enforcement nationwide. Senator Coons from Delaware is the other founder and cochair. Together, we sponsored the National Law Enforcement Museum Commemorative Coin Act that became law last year. The proceeds of the sales from those coins minted under the law would go to education and outreach about the service and sacrifice of law enforcement officers throughout our country's history. I am also a cosponsor of legislation that would provide resources to protect officers' mental and physical well-being, including the Law Enforcement Suicide Data Collection Act and the Lifesaving Gear for Police Act. I am glad to be a cosponsor of the Thin Blue Line Act and the Back the Blue Act, both of which are designed to better protect police officers and hold perpetrators who attack them accountable. Through these pieces of legislation and several others, the Congress has a chance to once again show its support of the men and women who serve in law enforcement. Police Week is different this year. I think we are all particularly appreciative of how law enforcement is having to step up in the crisis of the virus, doing what needs to be done, and again often making way for first responders and others to do what they can to save life and to protect other people who somehow are on the edges of this virus. They deal with people who are isolated in their homes, and because they are isolated, their mental health issues have become bigger issues. This is not an easy time for any of those who serve. Every year, we remember law enforcement, but this year I think we need to be particularly grateful for those who serve and protect us. I yield the floor.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. BLUNT
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-14-pt1-PgS2443
| null | 633
|
formal
|
welfare
| null |
racist
|
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, this is National Police Week. It is one of the weeks that I always look forward to. For years now, it has been an opportunity to spend time with people who protect us--who protect all of us. We get a chance each day to say thank you to the Capitol Police, who work here at the Capitol. As the chairman of the Law Enforcement Caucus, I have lots of opportunities in our State to see officers in groups and one at a time, and I always try to be thankful to them when I see them. Yet this is a time every year when we get a chance to see people from all over the country come to Washington, and it is a chance for us to say thank you to them and thank you to their families. This year in particular, Chief Jon Belmar--the just recently retiring chief at the St. Louis County Police Department and good friend who was always there for advice, always brought a big contingent of officers to Police Week. So I am thinking about him and of not seeing him at Police Week in Washington. I am also thinking about the new chief of the St. Louis County Police Department, Chief Mary Barton. This is a county of over a million people, so it is a substantial job. It is a place to really affect how police work is done. I look forward to spending time with Chief Barton as she moves forward with what she can do to build on what has happened in the department over the years. Like so much else this year, Police Week is different than it has been before. There are no sounds of hundreds of motorcycles going down the streets of Washington as we celebrate the week. There are no groups of law enforcement officers or police vehicles from all over the country coming here. I am grateful for them. They protectour safety. This is a job wherein, every day when you leave home, you have no idea what events may come before you that day, and, frankly, your family has no idea what may happen that day. I have told a number of officers, in thinking about their families, including the officers who serve here at the Capitol, that they generally have some sense as to whether they are in a moment that could lead to danger or not beyond the normal readiness to serve us but that their families, with their not being with them when they are at work, have to wonder over and over again during the day what threat may come to the person about whom they care so much as that person protects others. Each year, one of the memorable events of National Police Week is the candlelight vigil that is held at the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial a few blocks from here. We gather there annually to hear the names of officers who have lost their lives and to bear witness to and be grateful for their service. Sadly, in the past year, Missouri has lost three dedicated officers. Last June, Lakeshire Chief of Police Wayne Neidenberg passed away after assisting at the scene of a rollover crash in O'Fallon, MO. Chief Neidenberg had stopped at the scene on his way home, called for assistance, and proceeded on after the situation was stabilized, but before he got out of his car at home, he had a heart attack. We lost Chief Neidenberg at that moment. He spent his entire career in law enforcement. He served in both the St. Louis County Police Department and in the Lakeshire Police Department. He was an Army veteran. He is survived by Ardell, his wife; Cori, his daughter; and his three sons, Matthew, Darek, and Aaron. On Sunday, June 23, North County Police Cooperative Officer Michael Langsdorf responded to a complaint of check fraud at a local business in Wellston, MO. The man who has been charged with his murder shot Officer Langsdorf after a struggle inside the store. He had served with the department for only 3 months, but before that, for 17 years, he had been part of the St. Louis City Metropolitan Police force. At his memorial service, Officer Langsdorf's son, Kaleb, remembered his dad this way: They say never to meet your heroes because you'll end up disappointed. Well, I had the chance to be raised by mine, and he never disappointed. He taught me that a life of rescuing, defending and serving is the only life worth living. In addition to Kaleb, Officer Langsdorf is survived by Kim, his fiancee; by Olivia, his daughter; and by his future stepchildren, Devin and Kaitlyn. Officer Christopher Walsh joined the Springfield Police Department in 2016. On the evening of Sunday, March 15 of this year, Officer Walsh responded to an active shooter situation at a convenience store. The shooter had opened fire in the store, killing three people and injuring a fourth person. Officer Walsh rushed into harm's way to protect others. The shooter opened fire on Officer Walsh and killed him. His fellow officer, Josiah Overton, was injured in the same attack. Officer Walsh was fatally wounded and died the next day. He was a U.S. Army Reservist. During his 14 years of service in the Reserves, he completed tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sheri, his wife, and Morgan, their daughter, will live with his loss for the rest of their lives. Let me share a passage from Chris's obituary. Chris, by the way, was the first Springfield officer of the town I live in to be killed on duty since the 1930s. It is a great city with the great, good fortune of its officers' managing to do their jobs without having a loss like this, but we had one this year. The quote from his obituary reads: Christopher Ryan Walsh, a man devoid of vanity and devoted to the service and to the welfare of others, would hope that out of these tragic circumstances something beautiful could take root in all of our hearts. Chris would hope that his memory would serve as an example to spur small kindnesses and acts of devotion and service to all of our community, friends and loved ones, to look past the things that separate us and to focus on the things that unite us. So Police Week is exactly the time to think about the things that unite us, to think about these officers and their courage, to think about their acts of devotion and service as we remember them. Congress wants to make sure that law enforcement officers have the support they need and never get into a situation without the resources needed to back them up. I am honored to serve as cochairman of the bipartisan Senate Law Enforcement Caucus, which advances legislation that supports the efforts of law enforcement nationwide. Senator Coons from Delaware is the other founder and cochair. Together, we sponsored the National Law Enforcement Museum Commemorative Coin Act that became law last year. The proceeds of the sales from those coins minted under the law would go to education and outreach about the service and sacrifice of law enforcement officers throughout our country's history. I am also a cosponsor of legislation that would provide resources to protect officers' mental and physical well-being, including the Law Enforcement Suicide Data Collection Act and the Lifesaving Gear for Police Act. I am glad to be a cosponsor of the Thin Blue Line Act and the Back the Blue Act, both of which are designed to better protect police officers and hold perpetrators who attack them accountable. Through these pieces of legislation and several others, the Congress has a chance to once again show its support of the men and women who serve in law enforcement. Police Week is different this year. I think we are all particularly appreciative of how law enforcement is having to step up in the crisis of the virus, doing what needs to be done, and again often making way for first responders and others to do what they can to save life and to protect other people who somehow are on the edges of this virus. They deal with people who are isolated in their homes, and because they are isolated, their mental health issues have become bigger issues. This is not an easy time for any of those who serve. Every year, we remember law enforcement, but this year I think we need to be particularly grateful for those who serve and protect us. I yield the floor.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. BLUNT
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-14-pt1-PgS2443
| null | 634
|
formal
|
single
| null |
homophobic
|
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as spring begins to give way to summer, there is a singular tradition that unites everyone from across my home State. Even after particularly contentious college basketball seasons, Kentuckians of all backgrounds can look with pride to the Twin Spires of Churchill Downs for the Kentucky Derby. Since 1875, the pride of Louisville has been inextricably linked to the ``Most Exciting Two Minutes in Sports.'' This year, however, fans couldn't gather at the Grandstands, the infield, or at a Derby Party. The coronavirus pandemic has changed the daily lives of nearly every American. Even our most sacred traditions have been put on hold as we follow the advice of medical experts to slow the spread of this terrible virus. As a result, the Kentucky Derby has been postponed for the first time since the Second World War. The 146th Run for the Roses will instead take place over Labor Day weekend in September. Jerry Brewer, a Kentucky native and Washington Post sports writer, put into words the sense of longing felt by so many Kentuckians. In a wonderful column published on what would havebeen Derby weekend, Jerry shared both his personal reflections and our shared emotions. In Louisville, the Derby is more than a single race. Kentuckians spend the weeks before celebrating our people and our heritage. I am grateful that someone with such eloquence could describe Kentucky's Derby passion. That is not to say horseracing fans weren't treated to a race on May 2. Instead of hosting the world's most anticipated horse race, Churchill Downs created a virtual running of Triple Crown winners. In a match of some of horseracing's biggest names, Secretariat--one of the greatest horses to ever run--completed an all-star victory. Although a lot will be different about the Labor Day Derby, so much of what makes the Kentucky Derby special will remain the same. Whether at the track or watching from home, fans will still get to sip a mint julep filled with Kentucky's signature spirit. Longtime residents and first-time visitors alike will feel the sentimental tug as they sing ``My Old Kentucky Home.'' And the thundering hooves of thoroughbreds will echo in the ears of millions. The postponement is certainly a disappointment, but I would encourage my fellow Kentuckians not to despair. Our traditions are rooted deeply in the Bluegrass. We will beat this virus, and Kentucky will get the chance to shine once again. Like the champions whose names surround Churchill Downs, Kentucky has the strength and grit to overcome any obstacle and cross the finish line. We may not have a 146th Kentucky Derby champion for a few more months, but I think Jerry Brewer would agree, it is worth the wait. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jerry Brewer's article be printed in the Record.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. McCONNELL
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-14-pt1-PgS2445-12
| null | 635
|
formal
|
echo
| null |
antisemitic
|
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as spring begins to give way to summer, there is a singular tradition that unites everyone from across my home State. Even after particularly contentious college basketball seasons, Kentuckians of all backgrounds can look with pride to the Twin Spires of Churchill Downs for the Kentucky Derby. Since 1875, the pride of Louisville has been inextricably linked to the ``Most Exciting Two Minutes in Sports.'' This year, however, fans couldn't gather at the Grandstands, the infield, or at a Derby Party. The coronavirus pandemic has changed the daily lives of nearly every American. Even our most sacred traditions have been put on hold as we follow the advice of medical experts to slow the spread of this terrible virus. As a result, the Kentucky Derby has been postponed for the first time since the Second World War. The 146th Run for the Roses will instead take place over Labor Day weekend in September. Jerry Brewer, a Kentucky native and Washington Post sports writer, put into words the sense of longing felt by so many Kentuckians. In a wonderful column published on what would havebeen Derby weekend, Jerry shared both his personal reflections and our shared emotions. In Louisville, the Derby is more than a single race. Kentuckians spend the weeks before celebrating our people and our heritage. I am grateful that someone with such eloquence could describe Kentucky's Derby passion. That is not to say horseracing fans weren't treated to a race on May 2. Instead of hosting the world's most anticipated horse race, Churchill Downs created a virtual running of Triple Crown winners. In a match of some of horseracing's biggest names, Secretariat--one of the greatest horses to ever run--completed an all-star victory. Although a lot will be different about the Labor Day Derby, so much of what makes the Kentucky Derby special will remain the same. Whether at the track or watching from home, fans will still get to sip a mint julep filled with Kentucky's signature spirit. Longtime residents and first-time visitors alike will feel the sentimental tug as they sing ``My Old Kentucky Home.'' And the thundering hooves of thoroughbreds will echo in the ears of millions. The postponement is certainly a disappointment, but I would encourage my fellow Kentuckians not to despair. Our traditions are rooted deeply in the Bluegrass. We will beat this virus, and Kentucky will get the chance to shine once again. Like the champions whose names surround Churchill Downs, Kentucky has the strength and grit to overcome any obstacle and cross the finish line. We may not have a 146th Kentucky Derby champion for a few more months, but I think Jerry Brewer would agree, it is worth the wait. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jerry Brewer's article be printed in the Record.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. McCONNELL
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-14-pt1-PgS2445-12
| null | 636
|
formal
|
safeguard
| null |
transphobic
|
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the bravery and dedication of our Nation's law enforcement personnel. Even under normal circumstances, police officers put their lives on the line every day to defend our communities; now, as our country struggles through an unprecedented public health crisis, policemen and women are taking on even more personal risk to keep Americans safe. They deserve our wholehearted gratitude and respect. I am proud to cosponsor Senator Feinstein and Senator Graham's resolution designating May 10 through May 16 as National Police Week and emphasizing our support for the law enforcement officers across the United States who work to preserve our safety and security. The resolution also pays respect to the many police officers whotragically fell in the line of duty in the last year, including Officer Kyle David Olinger of the Montgomery County, MD, Police Department. Officer Olinger served with the Montgomery County Police Department for 2 years and had previously served with the Reading Police Department for 6 years. On April 18, 2019, Officer Olinger succumbed to complications of a gunshot wound he sustained on August 13, 2003, while making a traffic stop at the intersection of Second Avenue and Spring Street in Silver Spring. He observed one of the passengers in vehicle attempting to conceal a handgun underneath the seat. He ordered the man to drop the weapon before a struggle ensued. The man shot Officer Olinger in the neck, injuring his spinal column. The subject and the three other occupants drove away but were all apprehended a short time later. The man who shot him was convicted of attempted murder and subsequently sentenced to life in prison. Officer Olinger was paralyzed below his chest because of the shooting. He was married and had two sons. We will not forget his courage and the courage of his brothers and sisters on the force. Police officers around the country have devoted their lives to protecting us, and we must do everything within our power to protect them, too. During the COVID-19 pandemic, that means ensuring that all law enforcement officers have the equipment, training, and resources they need to stay safe while they continue their duties. Even though there is an extremely contagious and dangerous virus spreading all over the U.S., police forces cannot simply stop responding to crimes and emergencies. Policewomen and men, like healthcare providers and other essential workers, face a higher risk of contracting the coronavirus so that the rest of us can be safe and healthy. As of May 11, 2020, 101 officers have died from COVID-19. The least we can do is try to mitigate the risk that they face and save as many law enforcement lives as possible. There are concrete steps that we can and must take to safeguard our Nation's police officers during this epidemic. First and foremost, it is critical that we make the required personal protective equipment--PPE--and testing universally available to the police. I have heard heartwarming stories about communities in Maryland donating PPE to their local police stations, but the bottom line is that public citizens should not need to take on that responsibility. The government should ensure that law enforcement agencies have the tools and equipment they need to perform their duties safely, especially during a period of increased risk like this one. I hope that we will significantly expand funding to State and local governments in upcoming coronavirus legislation so that they have the means to do so. Unfortunately, even with added protective measures, there will still be law enforcement officers who contract COVID-19 in the line of duty. We owe those brave men and women support to recover medically and financially from this disease. That means that we need to make workers compensation and comprehensive healthcare, both physical and mental, fully accessible to police officers and men whom COVID-19 has affected. We also need to recognize that serving as a police officer is much more dangerous now than it was 6 months ago, and it should be compensated accordingly; law enforcement officers deserve hazard pay for putting themselves in harm's way during this pandemic in order to keep our communities safe. Of course, we need to work not just during National Police Week and not just during this health crisis but year-round to show law enforcement officers our gratitude. We must do everything we can to protect them in the line of duty and care for them when their service causes them harm. I will continue fighting to support the heroes who bravely risk their own security to make this country a safer place for all of us.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. CARDIN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-14-pt1-PgS2447
| null | 637
|
formal
|
tax cut
| null |
racist
|
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since the Senate returned to Washington 2 weeks ago after about a 6-week hiatus, we have accomplished quite a bit on a bipartisan basis. We have confirmed national security nominees; we have held hearings to examine liability limitations, coronavirus testing, safely getting back to work and school, and the impact of the pandemic on broadband. In short, the Senate has been working, on a bipartisan basis, to understand the challenges that this virus has created so we can provide targeted reforms. It certainly seems to be a different approach than the one taken by the House. Earlier this week, House Democrats released a so-called coronavirus relief bill. You might say they kind of mailed it in because they haven't been here for the last 2 weeks, but it has an absolutely staggering pricetag--$3 trillion, with a ``t.'' That is more than we spent in the first four coronavirus response bills combined. I tell my constituents, when I am talking to them on a videoconference call or teleconference, that 2 months ago, I never would have imagined that the Senate would be voting on trillion-dollar bills, but now apparently the House wants to make this a routine way to do business and particularly without much debate. As astounding as that figure is, the biggest issue with that bill isn't the cost or the fact that Speaker Pelosi and her party drafted it in secret but that they released the 1,800-page bill text on Tuesday, and they plan to vote on it tomorrow. Unbelievable. It would be an understatement to say there are concerns with this kind of legislating. I would call it legislative malpractice, to be kind. It is not just from Republicans or the administration or the American people; the Speaker's own Members are begging for additional time to review this massive bill. Unlike the previous coronavirus response bills passed here in Congress, there have been no bipartisan discussions in the production of that bill from the House--not with House Republicans, not with the administration, and certainly not with us. I can assure you that this legislation looks just like the kind of product that you would expect from that type of flawed process. It is partisan; it is unaffordable; it is unrealistic; and it stands absolutely no chance of becoming law. We all know that legislation drafted in a vacuum by one political party in one Chamber isn't a good-faith effort to try to survive, much less address, this pandemic crisis. It is a political statement as much as anything else, a liberal wish list which, if passed--which it will not be--would sink us further in debt without the benefit of addressing the problems we are actually facing. When this legislation was announced, Speaker Pelosi said: We all know we must put more money in the pockets of the American people. This is not only necessary for their survival, but it is also a stimulus to the economy. But the ones set to reap the biggest benefits from this bill aren't the ones struggling to make ends meet. Actually, what Speaker Pelosi is apparently trying to do is help some of the wealthiest people in America. This legislation would reinstate the so-called SALT deduction--the State and local tax deduction--and thrust that burden of subsidizing the wealthiest people in the bluest parts of the country on the rest of us. We were able to cap that in a fair and realistic way in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Prior to that tax reform, taxpayers who itemized their returns could deduct the amount of State and local taxes they paid with no limit. So, if you lived in a high-tax State like New York, there was no limit to your ability to deduct those State and local taxes. You know who paid for it? The people of Indiana, the people of Alaska, the people of Texas, and the people of other States who more responsibly dealt with their fiscal affairs. Now, for the average American, this change hasn't even been a blip on the radar screen. For the millionaires and billionaires, though, the ones Speaker Pelosi's bill would benefit most directly, this was a huge blow. People say, well, the wealthy ought to pay more. Well, OK. Here is a way for them to do it in the right way, but it is also a way to hold your State and local jurisdictions accountable for the high taxes they pass, only to previously allow those taxes to be deducted from the Federal income tax, so this is a matter of political accountability for them, too. I am sure the wealthiest Americans were delighted to see that the Democrats' response to what Speaker Pelosi called the biggest catastrophe in our Nation's history would allow them, once again, to reap the benefits of this no-limit deduction. If the SALT cap were removed, they would receive an average tax cut of nearly $60,000. That is higher than the household income for many Texans and many Americans. To make matters worse, this would sink our country further in debt. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Tax estimates that doing away with the SALT cap would cost about $700 billion over the next 7 years, with almost 95 percent of the benefit going to those making at least $200,000 and more than half going to those making more than $1 million a year. Now, we have spent a lot of money in the last couple of months, but we have done so in the face of an emergency--kind of like the civilian equivalent of World War II--fighting this virus, both the public health and the economic consequences, so we are already looking at staggering debt that we are going to have to deal with at some point because it is immoral to expect our kids and grandkids to pay that money back after we have already cashed those checks. But this just adds insult to injury, what Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats are trying to do. Even the liberal Tax Policy Center reported that one-third of the SALT deduction went to the top 1 percent. We hear our Democrat friends talk about income inequality and the top 1 percent needing to pay more. Well, then, their actions are directly contrary to their rhetoric. We know 80 percent of the benefit went to the top 20 percent income earners. Now, we are not trying to start a civil war here between people who are doing well and people who are not doing well, but this just makes absolutely no sense, particularly in the face of a crisis like the coronavirus. This isn't an attempt to support those who are struggling to make ends meet. That is who we ought to be focusing on: the people who are not getting a paycheck because their business has been shut down, their restaurant, their bar, their sports stadium. This is a get-out-of-jail-free card for millionaires and billionaires who don't want to pay their fair share of taxes and would foist that unfairly onto others. Now, I realize that is only a small portion of the bill. After all, it is a $3 trillion bill. So let's dive into a couple of other things--changes, for example, they would make in unemployment insurance. The CARES Act we passed--I think it was March 25--expanded unemployment benefits to include workers who would not typically be eligible for those benefits, the self-employed and independent contractors. It also provided an additional $600 of Federal benefit on top of the State's unemployment benefit through the end of July, for 4 months. The theory behind that was to provide workers who lost their jobs with the money they needed to pay for the necessities of life until the economy could reopen and they could go back to work. Slowly but surely, businesses across this country are starting to reopen their doors--safely and gradually reopen their doors--and many are facing an unlikely burden, which is now getting people to come back to work. Over the last several weeks, I have heard Texas businesses struggling to rehire their employees because they are making more from unemployment than they would if they worked. And it is not an isolated issue. According to the Texas Workforce Commission that administers our unemployment insurance program, 80 percent of the people are making more money on unemployment than they were when previously employed--80 percent. Now, that clearly was a mistake in the underlying bill. It is true that, when you do something that big and that fast, you are going to make some mistakes, but nobody can think this is sound public policy: to pay people more for not working than when they do work. Here is what House Democrats do. They extend that mistake through next January, providing even less of an incentive for workers to find new jobs. The United States can't be the successful economy that we are capable of being or have been by encouraging people not to work. At a certain point, these benefits are going to do more harm than good, and I would say they are already starting to do that. So, extending unemployment benefits to next year would deter people from trying to return to work because, why would they? Why would someone choose to do more work for less money? Well, I understand the need to support the American people until they are able to get back on their feet, but I am afraid this move would stunt--would retard--any hope of economic recovery, and it would deepen the hiring struggle businesses are already facing--and I am glad that they are hiring--and ensure that the ``Sorry, we're closed'' sign remains on the door of Main Street businesses throughout the country. As we begin to recover from the economic crisis that this virus has caused, our country will need a lot more from Congress than a blank check written in a back room. Rushing to appear to do something while doing absolutely nothing, which is what House Democrats have done, will not do any good unless we are taking the time to find out what America's healthcare professionals, small businesses, and workers actually need. That is what we are doing every day: listening. How is what we have already done working? What are the mistakes that need to be corrected? Where are the gaps that need to be filled--at a time when about a half-trillion dollars of that money from the CARES Act isn't even out the door yet from the Main Street lending facility that is being set up through the Federal Reserve. I am not blaming Treasury. I am just saying, they are covered up, and they are working 24/7, but let's see how what we have already done works before we continue to shovel more money aimlessly out the door. Earlier this week, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing to examine liability around the coronavirus pandemic. One of our witnesses was Kevin Smartt, a Texan from Bonham, TX--the home of Sam Rayburn--who is CEO and President of Kwik Chek food stores. I think he has 47 fast-food stores. In his opening statement, he outlined the steps that Kwik Chek took to protect the safety of its employees and customers while continuing to provide access to essential items like food and fuel. They followed the constantly shifting guidelines from the CDC and other Federal, State, and local government agencies and adjusted and adapted accordingly. Like millions of businesses across the country, Kwik Chek implemented strict cleaning protocols. They installed sneeze guards in their stores, they put markers on the floor to help customers maintain social distancing, and they made every effort to obtain masks and hand sanitizer, but have often struggled to overcome supply disruptions. In his testimony, Kevin said: Unfortunately, despite trying to do everything we can to protect the health and safety of our customers and employees during this pandemic, my companies now have targets on our back because our doors have remained open. That's just not right. We are all in this together, and my businesses shouldn't become targets for liability threats just because they serve their communities. I found this is a common fear for businesses small and large alike, aswell as for our dedicated healthcare professionals. Can you imagine serving on the frontline of this fight against the pandemic, doing everything you can possibly do to help people who are sick and injured, and, despite acting in good faith to protect employees, customers, or patients, we know that a certain element of the bar are lining up to file opportunistic lawsuits against these hard-working men and women, people who I think we all consider to be heroes. Across the country, lawsuits have already begun rolling in by the hundreds. Unless we take action, we are going to wake up from this pandemic only to find ourselves in a legal nightmare. Now, I want to be clear. Bad actors don't deserve blanket immunity. We are all in agreement on that point, but hard-working Americans who are trying to do the best thing and follow, in good faith, the guidance that their government gives them deserve a safe harbor from frivolous litigation and nuisance lawsuits. This Chamber is full of lawyers--Democrat lawyers, Republican lawyers--who are well aware of just how damaging this unlimited litigation that will ensue will be on our economic recovery. While House Democrats have been crafting their dead-on-arrival liberal wish list, we have been working on legislation which can and should gain bipartisan support and protect our frontline workers in the process. We are working on legislation to provide liability protections for the men and women who have supported us through this crisis and who will be the key to our recovery from this crisis. We simply must protect those who have acted in good faith from having to defend costly legal battles--only to win--only to lose their business because they can't survive that additional burden--going through the pandemic, the shutdown, only to find, just when you think you are coming out of it, that you are being drowned with litigation costs. I believe we should continue to provide an opportunity to seek legal recourse for those who act willfully or exercise reckless disregard for the health and safety of others. Those are the kinds of cases that deserve, in my opinion, access to compensation. Make no mistake, our country's road to recovery isn't going to be easy, and we have already caught a glimpse of the next epidemic, the lawsuit epidemic, that is waiting around the corner. Unlike House Democrats, who are moving full-speed ahead, the Senate has chosen to tap the brakes and figure out the best way to avoid hitting the brakes, economically and from a public health perspective.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. CORNYN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-14-pt1-PgS2461
| null | 638
|
formal
|
Federal Reserve
| null |
antisemitic
|
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since the Senate returned to Washington 2 weeks ago after about a 6-week hiatus, we have accomplished quite a bit on a bipartisan basis. We have confirmed national security nominees; we have held hearings to examine liability limitations, coronavirus testing, safely getting back to work and school, and the impact of the pandemic on broadband. In short, the Senate has been working, on a bipartisan basis, to understand the challenges that this virus has created so we can provide targeted reforms. It certainly seems to be a different approach than the one taken by the House. Earlier this week, House Democrats released a so-called coronavirus relief bill. You might say they kind of mailed it in because they haven't been here for the last 2 weeks, but it has an absolutely staggering pricetag--$3 trillion, with a ``t.'' That is more than we spent in the first four coronavirus response bills combined. I tell my constituents, when I am talking to them on a videoconference call or teleconference, that 2 months ago, I never would have imagined that the Senate would be voting on trillion-dollar bills, but now apparently the House wants to make this a routine way to do business and particularly without much debate. As astounding as that figure is, the biggest issue with that bill isn't the cost or the fact that Speaker Pelosi and her party drafted it in secret but that they released the 1,800-page bill text on Tuesday, and they plan to vote on it tomorrow. Unbelievable. It would be an understatement to say there are concerns with this kind of legislating. I would call it legislative malpractice, to be kind. It is not just from Republicans or the administration or the American people; the Speaker's own Members are begging for additional time to review this massive bill. Unlike the previous coronavirus response bills passed here in Congress, there have been no bipartisan discussions in the production of that bill from the House--not with House Republicans, not with the administration, and certainly not with us. I can assure you that this legislation looks just like the kind of product that you would expect from that type of flawed process. It is partisan; it is unaffordable; it is unrealistic; and it stands absolutely no chance of becoming law. We all know that legislation drafted in a vacuum by one political party in one Chamber isn't a good-faith effort to try to survive, much less address, this pandemic crisis. It is a political statement as much as anything else, a liberal wish list which, if passed--which it will not be--would sink us further in debt without the benefit of addressing the problems we are actually facing. When this legislation was announced, Speaker Pelosi said: We all know we must put more money in the pockets of the American people. This is not only necessary for their survival, but it is also a stimulus to the economy. But the ones set to reap the biggest benefits from this bill aren't the ones struggling to make ends meet. Actually, what Speaker Pelosi is apparently trying to do is help some of the wealthiest people in America. This legislation would reinstate the so-called SALT deduction--the State and local tax deduction--and thrust that burden of subsidizing the wealthiest people in the bluest parts of the country on the rest of us. We were able to cap that in a fair and realistic way in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Prior to that tax reform, taxpayers who itemized their returns could deduct the amount of State and local taxes they paid with no limit. So, if you lived in a high-tax State like New York, there was no limit to your ability to deduct those State and local taxes. You know who paid for it? The people of Indiana, the people of Alaska, the people of Texas, and the people of other States who more responsibly dealt with their fiscal affairs. Now, for the average American, this change hasn't even been a blip on the radar screen. For the millionaires and billionaires, though, the ones Speaker Pelosi's bill would benefit most directly, this was a huge blow. People say, well, the wealthy ought to pay more. Well, OK. Here is a way for them to do it in the right way, but it is also a way to hold your State and local jurisdictions accountable for the high taxes they pass, only to previously allow those taxes to be deducted from the Federal income tax, so this is a matter of political accountability for them, too. I am sure the wealthiest Americans were delighted to see that the Democrats' response to what Speaker Pelosi called the biggest catastrophe in our Nation's history would allow them, once again, to reap the benefits of this no-limit deduction. If the SALT cap were removed, they would receive an average tax cut of nearly $60,000. That is higher than the household income for many Texans and many Americans. To make matters worse, this would sink our country further in debt. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Tax estimates that doing away with the SALT cap would cost about $700 billion over the next 7 years, with almost 95 percent of the benefit going to those making at least $200,000 and more than half going to those making more than $1 million a year. Now, we have spent a lot of money in the last couple of months, but we have done so in the face of an emergency--kind of like the civilian equivalent of World War II--fighting this virus, both the public health and the economic consequences, so we are already looking at staggering debt that we are going to have to deal with at some point because it is immoral to expect our kids and grandkids to pay that money back after we have already cashed those checks. But this just adds insult to injury, what Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats are trying to do. Even the liberal Tax Policy Center reported that one-third of the SALT deduction went to the top 1 percent. We hear our Democrat friends talk about income inequality and the top 1 percent needing to pay more. Well, then, their actions are directly contrary to their rhetoric. We know 80 percent of the benefit went to the top 20 percent income earners. Now, we are not trying to start a civil war here between people who are doing well and people who are not doing well, but this just makes absolutely no sense, particularly in the face of a crisis like the coronavirus. This isn't an attempt to support those who are struggling to make ends meet. That is who we ought to be focusing on: the people who are not getting a paycheck because their business has been shut down, their restaurant, their bar, their sports stadium. This is a get-out-of-jail-free card for millionaires and billionaires who don't want to pay their fair share of taxes and would foist that unfairly onto others. Now, I realize that is only a small portion of the bill. After all, it is a $3 trillion bill. So let's dive into a couple of other things--changes, for example, they would make in unemployment insurance. The CARES Act we passed--I think it was March 25--expanded unemployment benefits to include workers who would not typically be eligible for those benefits, the self-employed and independent contractors. It also provided an additional $600 of Federal benefit on top of the State's unemployment benefit through the end of July, for 4 months. The theory behind that was to provide workers who lost their jobs with the money they needed to pay for the necessities of life until the economy could reopen and they could go back to work. Slowly but surely, businesses across this country are starting to reopen their doors--safely and gradually reopen their doors--and many are facing an unlikely burden, which is now getting people to come back to work. Over the last several weeks, I have heard Texas businesses struggling to rehire their employees because they are making more from unemployment than they would if they worked. And it is not an isolated issue. According to the Texas Workforce Commission that administers our unemployment insurance program, 80 percent of the people are making more money on unemployment than they were when previously employed--80 percent. Now, that clearly was a mistake in the underlying bill. It is true that, when you do something that big and that fast, you are going to make some mistakes, but nobody can think this is sound public policy: to pay people more for not working than when they do work. Here is what House Democrats do. They extend that mistake through next January, providing even less of an incentive for workers to find new jobs. The United States can't be the successful economy that we are capable of being or have been by encouraging people not to work. At a certain point, these benefits are going to do more harm than good, and I would say they are already starting to do that. So, extending unemployment benefits to next year would deter people from trying to return to work because, why would they? Why would someone choose to do more work for less money? Well, I understand the need to support the American people until they are able to get back on their feet, but I am afraid this move would stunt--would retard--any hope of economic recovery, and it would deepen the hiring struggle businesses are already facing--and I am glad that they are hiring--and ensure that the ``Sorry, we're closed'' sign remains on the door of Main Street businesses throughout the country. As we begin to recover from the economic crisis that this virus has caused, our country will need a lot more from Congress than a blank check written in a back room. Rushing to appear to do something while doing absolutely nothing, which is what House Democrats have done, will not do any good unless we are taking the time to find out what America's healthcare professionals, small businesses, and workers actually need. That is what we are doing every day: listening. How is what we have already done working? What are the mistakes that need to be corrected? Where are the gaps that need to be filled--at a time when about a half-trillion dollars of that money from the CARES Act isn't even out the door yet from the Main Street lending facility that is being set up through the Federal Reserve. I am not blaming Treasury. I am just saying, they are covered up, and they are working 24/7, but let's see how what we have already done works before we continue to shovel more money aimlessly out the door. Earlier this week, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing to examine liability around the coronavirus pandemic. One of our witnesses was Kevin Smartt, a Texan from Bonham, TX--the home of Sam Rayburn--who is CEO and President of Kwik Chek food stores. I think he has 47 fast-food stores. In his opening statement, he outlined the steps that Kwik Chek took to protect the safety of its employees and customers while continuing to provide access to essential items like food and fuel. They followed the constantly shifting guidelines from the CDC and other Federal, State, and local government agencies and adjusted and adapted accordingly. Like millions of businesses across the country, Kwik Chek implemented strict cleaning protocols. They installed sneeze guards in their stores, they put markers on the floor to help customers maintain social distancing, and they made every effort to obtain masks and hand sanitizer, but have often struggled to overcome supply disruptions. In his testimony, Kevin said: Unfortunately, despite trying to do everything we can to protect the health and safety of our customers and employees during this pandemic, my companies now have targets on our back because our doors have remained open. That's just not right. We are all in this together, and my businesses shouldn't become targets for liability threats just because they serve their communities. I found this is a common fear for businesses small and large alike, aswell as for our dedicated healthcare professionals. Can you imagine serving on the frontline of this fight against the pandemic, doing everything you can possibly do to help people who are sick and injured, and, despite acting in good faith to protect employees, customers, or patients, we know that a certain element of the bar are lining up to file opportunistic lawsuits against these hard-working men and women, people who I think we all consider to be heroes. Across the country, lawsuits have already begun rolling in by the hundreds. Unless we take action, we are going to wake up from this pandemic only to find ourselves in a legal nightmare. Now, I want to be clear. Bad actors don't deserve blanket immunity. We are all in agreement on that point, but hard-working Americans who are trying to do the best thing and follow, in good faith, the guidance that their government gives them deserve a safe harbor from frivolous litigation and nuisance lawsuits. This Chamber is full of lawyers--Democrat lawyers, Republican lawyers--who are well aware of just how damaging this unlimited litigation that will ensue will be on our economic recovery. While House Democrats have been crafting their dead-on-arrival liberal wish list, we have been working on legislation which can and should gain bipartisan support and protect our frontline workers in the process. We are working on legislation to provide liability protections for the men and women who have supported us through this crisis and who will be the key to our recovery from this crisis. We simply must protect those who have acted in good faith from having to defend costly legal battles--only to win--only to lose their business because they can't survive that additional burden--going through the pandemic, the shutdown, only to find, just when you think you are coming out of it, that you are being drowned with litigation costs. I believe we should continue to provide an opportunity to seek legal recourse for those who act willfully or exercise reckless disregard for the health and safety of others. Those are the kinds of cases that deserve, in my opinion, access to compensation. Make no mistake, our country's road to recovery isn't going to be easy, and we have already caught a glimpse of the next epidemic, the lawsuit epidemic, that is waiting around the corner. Unlike House Democrats, who are moving full-speed ahead, the Senate has chosen to tap the brakes and figure out the best way to avoid hitting the brakes, economically and from a public health perspective.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. CORNYN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-14-pt1-PgS2461
| null | 639
|
formal
|
the Fed
| null |
antisemitic
|
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since the Senate returned to Washington 2 weeks ago after about a 6-week hiatus, we have accomplished quite a bit on a bipartisan basis. We have confirmed national security nominees; we have held hearings to examine liability limitations, coronavirus testing, safely getting back to work and school, and the impact of the pandemic on broadband. In short, the Senate has been working, on a bipartisan basis, to understand the challenges that this virus has created so we can provide targeted reforms. It certainly seems to be a different approach than the one taken by the House. Earlier this week, House Democrats released a so-called coronavirus relief bill. You might say they kind of mailed it in because they haven't been here for the last 2 weeks, but it has an absolutely staggering pricetag--$3 trillion, with a ``t.'' That is more than we spent in the first four coronavirus response bills combined. I tell my constituents, when I am talking to them on a videoconference call or teleconference, that 2 months ago, I never would have imagined that the Senate would be voting on trillion-dollar bills, but now apparently the House wants to make this a routine way to do business and particularly without much debate. As astounding as that figure is, the biggest issue with that bill isn't the cost or the fact that Speaker Pelosi and her party drafted it in secret but that they released the 1,800-page bill text on Tuesday, and they plan to vote on it tomorrow. Unbelievable. It would be an understatement to say there are concerns with this kind of legislating. I would call it legislative malpractice, to be kind. It is not just from Republicans or the administration or the American people; the Speaker's own Members are begging for additional time to review this massive bill. Unlike the previous coronavirus response bills passed here in Congress, there have been no bipartisan discussions in the production of that bill from the House--not with House Republicans, not with the administration, and certainly not with us. I can assure you that this legislation looks just like the kind of product that you would expect from that type of flawed process. It is partisan; it is unaffordable; it is unrealistic; and it stands absolutely no chance of becoming law. We all know that legislation drafted in a vacuum by one political party in one Chamber isn't a good-faith effort to try to survive, much less address, this pandemic crisis. It is a political statement as much as anything else, a liberal wish list which, if passed--which it will not be--would sink us further in debt without the benefit of addressing the problems we are actually facing. When this legislation was announced, Speaker Pelosi said: We all know we must put more money in the pockets of the American people. This is not only necessary for their survival, but it is also a stimulus to the economy. But the ones set to reap the biggest benefits from this bill aren't the ones struggling to make ends meet. Actually, what Speaker Pelosi is apparently trying to do is help some of the wealthiest people in America. This legislation would reinstate the so-called SALT deduction--the State and local tax deduction--and thrust that burden of subsidizing the wealthiest people in the bluest parts of the country on the rest of us. We were able to cap that in a fair and realistic way in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Prior to that tax reform, taxpayers who itemized their returns could deduct the amount of State and local taxes they paid with no limit. So, if you lived in a high-tax State like New York, there was no limit to your ability to deduct those State and local taxes. You know who paid for it? The people of Indiana, the people of Alaska, the people of Texas, and the people of other States who more responsibly dealt with their fiscal affairs. Now, for the average American, this change hasn't even been a blip on the radar screen. For the millionaires and billionaires, though, the ones Speaker Pelosi's bill would benefit most directly, this was a huge blow. People say, well, the wealthy ought to pay more. Well, OK. Here is a way for them to do it in the right way, but it is also a way to hold your State and local jurisdictions accountable for the high taxes they pass, only to previously allow those taxes to be deducted from the Federal income tax, so this is a matter of political accountability for them, too. I am sure the wealthiest Americans were delighted to see that the Democrats' response to what Speaker Pelosi called the biggest catastrophe in our Nation's history would allow them, once again, to reap the benefits of this no-limit deduction. If the SALT cap were removed, they would receive an average tax cut of nearly $60,000. That is higher than the household income for many Texans and many Americans. To make matters worse, this would sink our country further in debt. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Tax estimates that doing away with the SALT cap would cost about $700 billion over the next 7 years, with almost 95 percent of the benefit going to those making at least $200,000 and more than half going to those making more than $1 million a year. Now, we have spent a lot of money in the last couple of months, but we have done so in the face of an emergency--kind of like the civilian equivalent of World War II--fighting this virus, both the public health and the economic consequences, so we are already looking at staggering debt that we are going to have to deal with at some point because it is immoral to expect our kids and grandkids to pay that money back after we have already cashed those checks. But this just adds insult to injury, what Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats are trying to do. Even the liberal Tax Policy Center reported that one-third of the SALT deduction went to the top 1 percent. We hear our Democrat friends talk about income inequality and the top 1 percent needing to pay more. Well, then, their actions are directly contrary to their rhetoric. We know 80 percent of the benefit went to the top 20 percent income earners. Now, we are not trying to start a civil war here between people who are doing well and people who are not doing well, but this just makes absolutely no sense, particularly in the face of a crisis like the coronavirus. This isn't an attempt to support those who are struggling to make ends meet. That is who we ought to be focusing on: the people who are not getting a paycheck because their business has been shut down, their restaurant, their bar, their sports stadium. This is a get-out-of-jail-free card for millionaires and billionaires who don't want to pay their fair share of taxes and would foist that unfairly onto others. Now, I realize that is only a small portion of the bill. After all, it is a $3 trillion bill. So let's dive into a couple of other things--changes, for example, they would make in unemployment insurance. The CARES Act we passed--I think it was March 25--expanded unemployment benefits to include workers who would not typically be eligible for those benefits, the self-employed and independent contractors. It also provided an additional $600 of Federal benefit on top of the State's unemployment benefit through the end of July, for 4 months. The theory behind that was to provide workers who lost their jobs with the money they needed to pay for the necessities of life until the economy could reopen and they could go back to work. Slowly but surely, businesses across this country are starting to reopen their doors--safely and gradually reopen their doors--and many are facing an unlikely burden, which is now getting people to come back to work. Over the last several weeks, I have heard Texas businesses struggling to rehire their employees because they are making more from unemployment than they would if they worked. And it is not an isolated issue. According to the Texas Workforce Commission that administers our unemployment insurance program, 80 percent of the people are making more money on unemployment than they were when previously employed--80 percent. Now, that clearly was a mistake in the underlying bill. It is true that, when you do something that big and that fast, you are going to make some mistakes, but nobody can think this is sound public policy: to pay people more for not working than when they do work. Here is what House Democrats do. They extend that mistake through next January, providing even less of an incentive for workers to find new jobs. The United States can't be the successful economy that we are capable of being or have been by encouraging people not to work. At a certain point, these benefits are going to do more harm than good, and I would say they are already starting to do that. So, extending unemployment benefits to next year would deter people from trying to return to work because, why would they? Why would someone choose to do more work for less money? Well, I understand the need to support the American people until they are able to get back on their feet, but I am afraid this move would stunt--would retard--any hope of economic recovery, and it would deepen the hiring struggle businesses are already facing--and I am glad that they are hiring--and ensure that the ``Sorry, we're closed'' sign remains on the door of Main Street businesses throughout the country. As we begin to recover from the economic crisis that this virus has caused, our country will need a lot more from Congress than a blank check written in a back room. Rushing to appear to do something while doing absolutely nothing, which is what House Democrats have done, will not do any good unless we are taking the time to find out what America's healthcare professionals, small businesses, and workers actually need. That is what we are doing every day: listening. How is what we have already done working? What are the mistakes that need to be corrected? Where are the gaps that need to be filled--at a time when about a half-trillion dollars of that money from the CARES Act isn't even out the door yet from the Main Street lending facility that is being set up through the Federal Reserve. I am not blaming Treasury. I am just saying, they are covered up, and they are working 24/7, but let's see how what we have already done works before we continue to shovel more money aimlessly out the door. Earlier this week, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing to examine liability around the coronavirus pandemic. One of our witnesses was Kevin Smartt, a Texan from Bonham, TX--the home of Sam Rayburn--who is CEO and President of Kwik Chek food stores. I think he has 47 fast-food stores. In his opening statement, he outlined the steps that Kwik Chek took to protect the safety of its employees and customers while continuing to provide access to essential items like food and fuel. They followed the constantly shifting guidelines from the CDC and other Federal, State, and local government agencies and adjusted and adapted accordingly. Like millions of businesses across the country, Kwik Chek implemented strict cleaning protocols. They installed sneeze guards in their stores, they put markers on the floor to help customers maintain social distancing, and they made every effort to obtain masks and hand sanitizer, but have often struggled to overcome supply disruptions. In his testimony, Kevin said: Unfortunately, despite trying to do everything we can to protect the health and safety of our customers and employees during this pandemic, my companies now have targets on our back because our doors have remained open. That's just not right. We are all in this together, and my businesses shouldn't become targets for liability threats just because they serve their communities. I found this is a common fear for businesses small and large alike, aswell as for our dedicated healthcare professionals. Can you imagine serving on the frontline of this fight against the pandemic, doing everything you can possibly do to help people who are sick and injured, and, despite acting in good faith to protect employees, customers, or patients, we know that a certain element of the bar are lining up to file opportunistic lawsuits against these hard-working men and women, people who I think we all consider to be heroes. Across the country, lawsuits have already begun rolling in by the hundreds. Unless we take action, we are going to wake up from this pandemic only to find ourselves in a legal nightmare. Now, I want to be clear. Bad actors don't deserve blanket immunity. We are all in agreement on that point, but hard-working Americans who are trying to do the best thing and follow, in good faith, the guidance that their government gives them deserve a safe harbor from frivolous litigation and nuisance lawsuits. This Chamber is full of lawyers--Democrat lawyers, Republican lawyers--who are well aware of just how damaging this unlimited litigation that will ensue will be on our economic recovery. While House Democrats have been crafting their dead-on-arrival liberal wish list, we have been working on legislation which can and should gain bipartisan support and protect our frontline workers in the process. We are working on legislation to provide liability protections for the men and women who have supported us through this crisis and who will be the key to our recovery from this crisis. We simply must protect those who have acted in good faith from having to defend costly legal battles--only to win--only to lose their business because they can't survive that additional burden--going through the pandemic, the shutdown, only to find, just when you think you are coming out of it, that you are being drowned with litigation costs. I believe we should continue to provide an opportunity to seek legal recourse for those who act willfully or exercise reckless disregard for the health and safety of others. Those are the kinds of cases that deserve, in my opinion, access to compensation. Make no mistake, our country's road to recovery isn't going to be easy, and we have already caught a glimpse of the next epidemic, the lawsuit epidemic, that is waiting around the corner. Unlike House Democrats, who are moving full-speed ahead, the Senate has chosen to tap the brakes and figure out the best way to avoid hitting the brakes, economically and from a public health perspective.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. CORNYN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-14-pt1-PgS2461
| null | 640
|
formal
|
hard-working Americans
| null |
racist
|
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since the Senate returned to Washington 2 weeks ago after about a 6-week hiatus, we have accomplished quite a bit on a bipartisan basis. We have confirmed national security nominees; we have held hearings to examine liability limitations, coronavirus testing, safely getting back to work and school, and the impact of the pandemic on broadband. In short, the Senate has been working, on a bipartisan basis, to understand the challenges that this virus has created so we can provide targeted reforms. It certainly seems to be a different approach than the one taken by the House. Earlier this week, House Democrats released a so-called coronavirus relief bill. You might say they kind of mailed it in because they haven't been here for the last 2 weeks, but it has an absolutely staggering pricetag--$3 trillion, with a ``t.'' That is more than we spent in the first four coronavirus response bills combined. I tell my constituents, when I am talking to them on a videoconference call or teleconference, that 2 months ago, I never would have imagined that the Senate would be voting on trillion-dollar bills, but now apparently the House wants to make this a routine way to do business and particularly without much debate. As astounding as that figure is, the biggest issue with that bill isn't the cost or the fact that Speaker Pelosi and her party drafted it in secret but that they released the 1,800-page bill text on Tuesday, and they plan to vote on it tomorrow. Unbelievable. It would be an understatement to say there are concerns with this kind of legislating. I would call it legislative malpractice, to be kind. It is not just from Republicans or the administration or the American people; the Speaker's own Members are begging for additional time to review this massive bill. Unlike the previous coronavirus response bills passed here in Congress, there have been no bipartisan discussions in the production of that bill from the House--not with House Republicans, not with the administration, and certainly not with us. I can assure you that this legislation looks just like the kind of product that you would expect from that type of flawed process. It is partisan; it is unaffordable; it is unrealistic; and it stands absolutely no chance of becoming law. We all know that legislation drafted in a vacuum by one political party in one Chamber isn't a good-faith effort to try to survive, much less address, this pandemic crisis. It is a political statement as much as anything else, a liberal wish list which, if passed--which it will not be--would sink us further in debt without the benefit of addressing the problems we are actually facing. When this legislation was announced, Speaker Pelosi said: We all know we must put more money in the pockets of the American people. This is not only necessary for their survival, but it is also a stimulus to the economy. But the ones set to reap the biggest benefits from this bill aren't the ones struggling to make ends meet. Actually, what Speaker Pelosi is apparently trying to do is help some of the wealthiest people in America. This legislation would reinstate the so-called SALT deduction--the State and local tax deduction--and thrust that burden of subsidizing the wealthiest people in the bluest parts of the country on the rest of us. We were able to cap that in a fair and realistic way in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Prior to that tax reform, taxpayers who itemized their returns could deduct the amount of State and local taxes they paid with no limit. So, if you lived in a high-tax State like New York, there was no limit to your ability to deduct those State and local taxes. You know who paid for it? The people of Indiana, the people of Alaska, the people of Texas, and the people of other States who more responsibly dealt with their fiscal affairs. Now, for the average American, this change hasn't even been a blip on the radar screen. For the millionaires and billionaires, though, the ones Speaker Pelosi's bill would benefit most directly, this was a huge blow. People say, well, the wealthy ought to pay more. Well, OK. Here is a way for them to do it in the right way, but it is also a way to hold your State and local jurisdictions accountable for the high taxes they pass, only to previously allow those taxes to be deducted from the Federal income tax, so this is a matter of political accountability for them, too. I am sure the wealthiest Americans were delighted to see that the Democrats' response to what Speaker Pelosi called the biggest catastrophe in our Nation's history would allow them, once again, to reap the benefits of this no-limit deduction. If the SALT cap were removed, they would receive an average tax cut of nearly $60,000. That is higher than the household income for many Texans and many Americans. To make matters worse, this would sink our country further in debt. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Tax estimates that doing away with the SALT cap would cost about $700 billion over the next 7 years, with almost 95 percent of the benefit going to those making at least $200,000 and more than half going to those making more than $1 million a year. Now, we have spent a lot of money in the last couple of months, but we have done so in the face of an emergency--kind of like the civilian equivalent of World War II--fighting this virus, both the public health and the economic consequences, so we are already looking at staggering debt that we are going to have to deal with at some point because it is immoral to expect our kids and grandkids to pay that money back after we have already cashed those checks. But this just adds insult to injury, what Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats are trying to do. Even the liberal Tax Policy Center reported that one-third of the SALT deduction went to the top 1 percent. We hear our Democrat friends talk about income inequality and the top 1 percent needing to pay more. Well, then, their actions are directly contrary to their rhetoric. We know 80 percent of the benefit went to the top 20 percent income earners. Now, we are not trying to start a civil war here between people who are doing well and people who are not doing well, but this just makes absolutely no sense, particularly in the face of a crisis like the coronavirus. This isn't an attempt to support those who are struggling to make ends meet. That is who we ought to be focusing on: the people who are not getting a paycheck because their business has been shut down, their restaurant, their bar, their sports stadium. This is a get-out-of-jail-free card for millionaires and billionaires who don't want to pay their fair share of taxes and would foist that unfairly onto others. Now, I realize that is only a small portion of the bill. After all, it is a $3 trillion bill. So let's dive into a couple of other things--changes, for example, they would make in unemployment insurance. The CARES Act we passed--I think it was March 25--expanded unemployment benefits to include workers who would not typically be eligible for those benefits, the self-employed and independent contractors. It also provided an additional $600 of Federal benefit on top of the State's unemployment benefit through the end of July, for 4 months. The theory behind that was to provide workers who lost their jobs with the money they needed to pay for the necessities of life until the economy could reopen and they could go back to work. Slowly but surely, businesses across this country are starting to reopen their doors--safely and gradually reopen their doors--and many are facing an unlikely burden, which is now getting people to come back to work. Over the last several weeks, I have heard Texas businesses struggling to rehire their employees because they are making more from unemployment than they would if they worked. And it is not an isolated issue. According to the Texas Workforce Commission that administers our unemployment insurance program, 80 percent of the people are making more money on unemployment than they were when previously employed--80 percent. Now, that clearly was a mistake in the underlying bill. It is true that, when you do something that big and that fast, you are going to make some mistakes, but nobody can think this is sound public policy: to pay people more for not working than when they do work. Here is what House Democrats do. They extend that mistake through next January, providing even less of an incentive for workers to find new jobs. The United States can't be the successful economy that we are capable of being or have been by encouraging people not to work. At a certain point, these benefits are going to do more harm than good, and I would say they are already starting to do that. So, extending unemployment benefits to next year would deter people from trying to return to work because, why would they? Why would someone choose to do more work for less money? Well, I understand the need to support the American people until they are able to get back on their feet, but I am afraid this move would stunt--would retard--any hope of economic recovery, and it would deepen the hiring struggle businesses are already facing--and I am glad that they are hiring--and ensure that the ``Sorry, we're closed'' sign remains on the door of Main Street businesses throughout the country. As we begin to recover from the economic crisis that this virus has caused, our country will need a lot more from Congress than a blank check written in a back room. Rushing to appear to do something while doing absolutely nothing, which is what House Democrats have done, will not do any good unless we are taking the time to find out what America's healthcare professionals, small businesses, and workers actually need. That is what we are doing every day: listening. How is what we have already done working? What are the mistakes that need to be corrected? Where are the gaps that need to be filled--at a time when about a half-trillion dollars of that money from the CARES Act isn't even out the door yet from the Main Street lending facility that is being set up through the Federal Reserve. I am not blaming Treasury. I am just saying, they are covered up, and they are working 24/7, but let's see how what we have already done works before we continue to shovel more money aimlessly out the door. Earlier this week, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing to examine liability around the coronavirus pandemic. One of our witnesses was Kevin Smartt, a Texan from Bonham, TX--the home of Sam Rayburn--who is CEO and President of Kwik Chek food stores. I think he has 47 fast-food stores. In his opening statement, he outlined the steps that Kwik Chek took to protect the safety of its employees and customers while continuing to provide access to essential items like food and fuel. They followed the constantly shifting guidelines from the CDC and other Federal, State, and local government agencies and adjusted and adapted accordingly. Like millions of businesses across the country, Kwik Chek implemented strict cleaning protocols. They installed sneeze guards in their stores, they put markers on the floor to help customers maintain social distancing, and they made every effort to obtain masks and hand sanitizer, but have often struggled to overcome supply disruptions. In his testimony, Kevin said: Unfortunately, despite trying to do everything we can to protect the health and safety of our customers and employees during this pandemic, my companies now have targets on our back because our doors have remained open. That's just not right. We are all in this together, and my businesses shouldn't become targets for liability threats just because they serve their communities. I found this is a common fear for businesses small and large alike, aswell as for our dedicated healthcare professionals. Can you imagine serving on the frontline of this fight against the pandemic, doing everything you can possibly do to help people who are sick and injured, and, despite acting in good faith to protect employees, customers, or patients, we know that a certain element of the bar are lining up to file opportunistic lawsuits against these hard-working men and women, people who I think we all consider to be heroes. Across the country, lawsuits have already begun rolling in by the hundreds. Unless we take action, we are going to wake up from this pandemic only to find ourselves in a legal nightmare. Now, I want to be clear. Bad actors don't deserve blanket immunity. We are all in agreement on that point, but hard-working Americans who are trying to do the best thing and follow, in good faith, the guidance that their government gives them deserve a safe harbor from frivolous litigation and nuisance lawsuits. This Chamber is full of lawyers--Democrat lawyers, Republican lawyers--who are well aware of just how damaging this unlimited litigation that will ensue will be on our economic recovery. While House Democrats have been crafting their dead-on-arrival liberal wish list, we have been working on legislation which can and should gain bipartisan support and protect our frontline workers in the process. We are working on legislation to provide liability protections for the men and women who have supported us through this crisis and who will be the key to our recovery from this crisis. We simply must protect those who have acted in good faith from having to defend costly legal battles--only to win--only to lose their business because they can't survive that additional burden--going through the pandemic, the shutdown, only to find, just when you think you are coming out of it, that you are being drowned with litigation costs. I believe we should continue to provide an opportunity to seek legal recourse for those who act willfully or exercise reckless disregard for the health and safety of others. Those are the kinds of cases that deserve, in my opinion, access to compensation. Make no mistake, our country's road to recovery isn't going to be easy, and we have already caught a glimpse of the next epidemic, the lawsuit epidemic, that is waiting around the corner. Unlike House Democrats, who are moving full-speed ahead, the Senate has chosen to tap the brakes and figure out the best way to avoid hitting the brakes, economically and from a public health perspective.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. CORNYN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-14-pt1-PgS2461
| null | 641
|
formal
|
hard-working American
| null |
racist
|
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since the Senate returned to Washington 2 weeks ago after about a 6-week hiatus, we have accomplished quite a bit on a bipartisan basis. We have confirmed national security nominees; we have held hearings to examine liability limitations, coronavirus testing, safely getting back to work and school, and the impact of the pandemic on broadband. In short, the Senate has been working, on a bipartisan basis, to understand the challenges that this virus has created so we can provide targeted reforms. It certainly seems to be a different approach than the one taken by the House. Earlier this week, House Democrats released a so-called coronavirus relief bill. You might say they kind of mailed it in because they haven't been here for the last 2 weeks, but it has an absolutely staggering pricetag--$3 trillion, with a ``t.'' That is more than we spent in the first four coronavirus response bills combined. I tell my constituents, when I am talking to them on a videoconference call or teleconference, that 2 months ago, I never would have imagined that the Senate would be voting on trillion-dollar bills, but now apparently the House wants to make this a routine way to do business and particularly without much debate. As astounding as that figure is, the biggest issue with that bill isn't the cost or the fact that Speaker Pelosi and her party drafted it in secret but that they released the 1,800-page bill text on Tuesday, and they plan to vote on it tomorrow. Unbelievable. It would be an understatement to say there are concerns with this kind of legislating. I would call it legislative malpractice, to be kind. It is not just from Republicans or the administration or the American people; the Speaker's own Members are begging for additional time to review this massive bill. Unlike the previous coronavirus response bills passed here in Congress, there have been no bipartisan discussions in the production of that bill from the House--not with House Republicans, not with the administration, and certainly not with us. I can assure you that this legislation looks just like the kind of product that you would expect from that type of flawed process. It is partisan; it is unaffordable; it is unrealistic; and it stands absolutely no chance of becoming law. We all know that legislation drafted in a vacuum by one political party in one Chamber isn't a good-faith effort to try to survive, much less address, this pandemic crisis. It is a political statement as much as anything else, a liberal wish list which, if passed--which it will not be--would sink us further in debt without the benefit of addressing the problems we are actually facing. When this legislation was announced, Speaker Pelosi said: We all know we must put more money in the pockets of the American people. This is not only necessary for their survival, but it is also a stimulus to the economy. But the ones set to reap the biggest benefits from this bill aren't the ones struggling to make ends meet. Actually, what Speaker Pelosi is apparently trying to do is help some of the wealthiest people in America. This legislation would reinstate the so-called SALT deduction--the State and local tax deduction--and thrust that burden of subsidizing the wealthiest people in the bluest parts of the country on the rest of us. We were able to cap that in a fair and realistic way in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Prior to that tax reform, taxpayers who itemized their returns could deduct the amount of State and local taxes they paid with no limit. So, if you lived in a high-tax State like New York, there was no limit to your ability to deduct those State and local taxes. You know who paid for it? The people of Indiana, the people of Alaska, the people of Texas, and the people of other States who more responsibly dealt with their fiscal affairs. Now, for the average American, this change hasn't even been a blip on the radar screen. For the millionaires and billionaires, though, the ones Speaker Pelosi's bill would benefit most directly, this was a huge blow. People say, well, the wealthy ought to pay more. Well, OK. Here is a way for them to do it in the right way, but it is also a way to hold your State and local jurisdictions accountable for the high taxes they pass, only to previously allow those taxes to be deducted from the Federal income tax, so this is a matter of political accountability for them, too. I am sure the wealthiest Americans were delighted to see that the Democrats' response to what Speaker Pelosi called the biggest catastrophe in our Nation's history would allow them, once again, to reap the benefits of this no-limit deduction. If the SALT cap were removed, they would receive an average tax cut of nearly $60,000. That is higher than the household income for many Texans and many Americans. To make matters worse, this would sink our country further in debt. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Tax estimates that doing away with the SALT cap would cost about $700 billion over the next 7 years, with almost 95 percent of the benefit going to those making at least $200,000 and more than half going to those making more than $1 million a year. Now, we have spent a lot of money in the last couple of months, but we have done so in the face of an emergency--kind of like the civilian equivalent of World War II--fighting this virus, both the public health and the economic consequences, so we are already looking at staggering debt that we are going to have to deal with at some point because it is immoral to expect our kids and grandkids to pay that money back after we have already cashed those checks. But this just adds insult to injury, what Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats are trying to do. Even the liberal Tax Policy Center reported that one-third of the SALT deduction went to the top 1 percent. We hear our Democrat friends talk about income inequality and the top 1 percent needing to pay more. Well, then, their actions are directly contrary to their rhetoric. We know 80 percent of the benefit went to the top 20 percent income earners. Now, we are not trying to start a civil war here between people who are doing well and people who are not doing well, but this just makes absolutely no sense, particularly in the face of a crisis like the coronavirus. This isn't an attempt to support those who are struggling to make ends meet. That is who we ought to be focusing on: the people who are not getting a paycheck because their business has been shut down, their restaurant, their bar, their sports stadium. This is a get-out-of-jail-free card for millionaires and billionaires who don't want to pay their fair share of taxes and would foist that unfairly onto others. Now, I realize that is only a small portion of the bill. After all, it is a $3 trillion bill. So let's dive into a couple of other things--changes, for example, they would make in unemployment insurance. The CARES Act we passed--I think it was March 25--expanded unemployment benefits to include workers who would not typically be eligible for those benefits, the self-employed and independent contractors. It also provided an additional $600 of Federal benefit on top of the State's unemployment benefit through the end of July, for 4 months. The theory behind that was to provide workers who lost their jobs with the money they needed to pay for the necessities of life until the economy could reopen and they could go back to work. Slowly but surely, businesses across this country are starting to reopen their doors--safely and gradually reopen their doors--and many are facing an unlikely burden, which is now getting people to come back to work. Over the last several weeks, I have heard Texas businesses struggling to rehire their employees because they are making more from unemployment than they would if they worked. And it is not an isolated issue. According to the Texas Workforce Commission that administers our unemployment insurance program, 80 percent of the people are making more money on unemployment than they were when previously employed--80 percent. Now, that clearly was a mistake in the underlying bill. It is true that, when you do something that big and that fast, you are going to make some mistakes, but nobody can think this is sound public policy: to pay people more for not working than when they do work. Here is what House Democrats do. They extend that mistake through next January, providing even less of an incentive for workers to find new jobs. The United States can't be the successful economy that we are capable of being or have been by encouraging people not to work. At a certain point, these benefits are going to do more harm than good, and I would say they are already starting to do that. So, extending unemployment benefits to next year would deter people from trying to return to work because, why would they? Why would someone choose to do more work for less money? Well, I understand the need to support the American people until they are able to get back on their feet, but I am afraid this move would stunt--would retard--any hope of economic recovery, and it would deepen the hiring struggle businesses are already facing--and I am glad that they are hiring--and ensure that the ``Sorry, we're closed'' sign remains on the door of Main Street businesses throughout the country. As we begin to recover from the economic crisis that this virus has caused, our country will need a lot more from Congress than a blank check written in a back room. Rushing to appear to do something while doing absolutely nothing, which is what House Democrats have done, will not do any good unless we are taking the time to find out what America's healthcare professionals, small businesses, and workers actually need. That is what we are doing every day: listening. How is what we have already done working? What are the mistakes that need to be corrected? Where are the gaps that need to be filled--at a time when about a half-trillion dollars of that money from the CARES Act isn't even out the door yet from the Main Street lending facility that is being set up through the Federal Reserve. I am not blaming Treasury. I am just saying, they are covered up, and they are working 24/7, but let's see how what we have already done works before we continue to shovel more money aimlessly out the door. Earlier this week, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing to examine liability around the coronavirus pandemic. One of our witnesses was Kevin Smartt, a Texan from Bonham, TX--the home of Sam Rayburn--who is CEO and President of Kwik Chek food stores. I think he has 47 fast-food stores. In his opening statement, he outlined the steps that Kwik Chek took to protect the safety of its employees and customers while continuing to provide access to essential items like food and fuel. They followed the constantly shifting guidelines from the CDC and other Federal, State, and local government agencies and adjusted and adapted accordingly. Like millions of businesses across the country, Kwik Chek implemented strict cleaning protocols. They installed sneeze guards in their stores, they put markers on the floor to help customers maintain social distancing, and they made every effort to obtain masks and hand sanitizer, but have often struggled to overcome supply disruptions. In his testimony, Kevin said: Unfortunately, despite trying to do everything we can to protect the health and safety of our customers and employees during this pandemic, my companies now have targets on our back because our doors have remained open. That's just not right. We are all in this together, and my businesses shouldn't become targets for liability threats just because they serve their communities. I found this is a common fear for businesses small and large alike, aswell as for our dedicated healthcare professionals. Can you imagine serving on the frontline of this fight against the pandemic, doing everything you can possibly do to help people who are sick and injured, and, despite acting in good faith to protect employees, customers, or patients, we know that a certain element of the bar are lining up to file opportunistic lawsuits against these hard-working men and women, people who I think we all consider to be heroes. Across the country, lawsuits have already begun rolling in by the hundreds. Unless we take action, we are going to wake up from this pandemic only to find ourselves in a legal nightmare. Now, I want to be clear. Bad actors don't deserve blanket immunity. We are all in agreement on that point, but hard-working Americans who are trying to do the best thing and follow, in good faith, the guidance that their government gives them deserve a safe harbor from frivolous litigation and nuisance lawsuits. This Chamber is full of lawyers--Democrat lawyers, Republican lawyers--who are well aware of just how damaging this unlimited litigation that will ensue will be on our economic recovery. While House Democrats have been crafting their dead-on-arrival liberal wish list, we have been working on legislation which can and should gain bipartisan support and protect our frontline workers in the process. We are working on legislation to provide liability protections for the men and women who have supported us through this crisis and who will be the key to our recovery from this crisis. We simply must protect those who have acted in good faith from having to defend costly legal battles--only to win--only to lose their business because they can't survive that additional burden--going through the pandemic, the shutdown, only to find, just when you think you are coming out of it, that you are being drowned with litigation costs. I believe we should continue to provide an opportunity to seek legal recourse for those who act willfully or exercise reckless disregard for the health and safety of others. Those are the kinds of cases that deserve, in my opinion, access to compensation. Make no mistake, our country's road to recovery isn't going to be easy, and we have already caught a glimpse of the next epidemic, the lawsuit epidemic, that is waiting around the corner. Unlike House Democrats, who are moving full-speed ahead, the Senate has chosen to tap the brakes and figure out the best way to avoid hitting the brakes, economically and from a public health perspective.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. CORNYN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-14-pt1-PgS2461
| null | 642
|
formal
|
urban
| null |
racist
|
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is Thursday, and I am back on the Senate floor, partaking in one of my favorite times of the week, which is to come down to the floor and talk about somebody who is making a great difference in my State. We call this individual our Alaskan of the Week. To those who watch the floor back home, sometimes we break the rules a little bit and recognize more than one person. We just call them the Alaskans of the Week, with an ``s.'' Pandemic or no pandemic, I think it is still important that we come down and recognize, particularly during these challenging times, people who are making a difference in our State and across our country. As I mentioned last week, this pandemic is definitely testing the character of our Nation. You might remember, right when it was hitting, some reporters from the Washington Post wrote a story, saying that Americans are going to be tested and that they don't think they are going to be able to pass--maybe not like they had in World War II and at other times--that the mettle, the toughness, and the resiliency of Americans might not be able to get us through this. That was the Washington Post--classic, clueless, inside-the-beltway reporting. In my remarks on the floor--this was about 6 weeks ago--I said: You ought to come up to Alaska, Washington Post, and see my constituents, or maybe come out with my marines and see the marines. You have to know America. Alaska is America, and we are going to pass this test as a nation, and we are--all across the country and certainly in my great State. In small, rural villages and in urban centers, from the tundra to the rainforests, all across the State, people are helping each other. They are passing out food. They are helping the elderly, making sure they are not lonely. They are tending to those in need and are displaying generosity, strength, and amazing resilience. The paper should write more about that. Our frontline workers have now become our national heroes. Some of them are working day in and day out to ensure that our grocery stores are stocked, that the goods are transported, that the buildings are maintained, that our telecommunication systems are running, that our airplanes are flying, that our hospitals are open, and that our community healthcare workers can give care. The list, as we all know, goes on and on and on. Because of those back home, because of these great Americans all around our country, and because of what is happening in my State with our State's leadership, Alaska has done well from a health standpoint in terms of this virus. Knock on wood, of course--and I am doing it--things could change. They could change anywhere. They certainly could change in Alaska, but so far so good. Alaskans are known for their rugged individualism. Alaskans are not naturally people who automatically followorders without having a good reason to do so, but almost everybody across our State has taken this virus seriously in their helping one another and in their following the guidance that has been given by our State's leaders. I chalk that up to good leadership from our very attentive mayors--city mayors, borough mayors--to our local leaders across the State, to our Governor, Mike Dunleavy, and to the healthcare team he put together in his administration that was ready when this pandemic hit. I am going to talk about the healthcare team. It has been led by the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Adam Crum, and by Alaska's chief medical officer, Dr. Anne Zink. Both of them are our Alaskans of the week. They have both worked day and night throughout these past several weeks since this pandemic has hit our Nation, has hit my State, and they have been trying around the clock to keep our fellow Alaskans safe. As I mentioned, both are more than deserving of this very, very prestigious award. They have risen to the challenge in so many impressive ways in working for their State and their country. As Alaskans do, both of them have interesting life stories, compelling life stories. Let me tell you a little bit about both of them. Adam Crum lives in Wasilla with Colleen, his wife. He was born and raised in Alaska. He grew up on the Kenai Peninsula and went to Homer High School. He was a graduate there and a good football player. He went to Northwestern and walked on the football team. That is Big Ten football. That takes a lot of guts--center, guard, offensive lineman. He did great there. In fact, look at the Crums, his siblings. They are a big family--impressive, a big group. There are brains and brawn in that family. Adam's three brothers all played college ball--Joey at Puget Sound, Richie at the University of Idaho, and Cody at West Texas A&M. Their dad also played at the University of Arkansas. Like I said, when you line up the Crum brothers, you look like you have a serious pro-football offensive line right there. It is an impressive family. Adam enjoyed Northwestern and playing ball there, but on his first visit back home from college, he began to realize just how unique the great State of Alaska was where he grew up. He said: ``For me, I really didn't appreciate it until I actually went someplace else.'' Like all of us who love the outdoors, the scenery, the diversity, the opportunities, when he moved back from college, he was committed to coming back to our State to serve our State. He went into his family business. He got his master's degree in public health from Johns Hopkins University. Then, when Governor Dunleavy, whom I mentioned, was elected in November of 2018, Adam was offered the job of commissioner of Health and Social Services. His starting date was going to be December 3, 2018, but in Alaska, there are always adventures and challenges, and on November 30, the south central part of our State got hit with a huge shock, a huge earthquake--7.1. There were cracking and collapsing roads and highways. It damaged buildings, destroyed schools, knocked out power, and sent people scrambling outside and under furniture. It really damaged homes. So Adam, who was going to start this job in 3 days, said: I am going to start now. He moved up the start date and got to work. It was a crash course in health emergency operations. Brand new on the job, his Health and Human Services department was in touch with all the hospitals, all the prisons, the elder care facilities, the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. He watched and led these operations, everybody working together. Here is the miracle: In this huge earthquake during rush hour in Alaska, not one life was lost. It was remarkable--literally a miracle. He learned how to bring people together in emergency operations. That exercise was invaluable with what came next, and we all know what came next--the pandemic which has rocked our State, our country, and really our world. Alaska's chief medical officer, Dr. Anne Zink, appears with Commissioner Adam Crum and Governor Dunleavy nearly every night to address Alaskans and our media in a press conference about where we are with regard to the health of our State and this coronavirus. Versions of this scene happen nearly every night across the country as Governors are addressing their public. But I am willing to venture to say that if there is a marker of success with such briefings, it is this: how much the people are trusting of what is being told to them. I would state that Alaska's healthcare team, Commissioner Crum and Dr. Zink, have passed with flying colors. Dr. Zink is certainly one of the stars of this nightly show as she appears from her yurt in her backyard in Palmer, AK. She has become so popular in Alaska that there is even a Facebook page dedicated to her called ``Think like Zink.'' Rorie Watt, Juneau's city manager, actually wrote an ode in her honor. It is a lengthy poem, and it starts like this: Oh Alaska, I love you and it feels like we are teetering on the brink; who can guide and steer us? The unflappable Dr. Zink! You know if a poem is written about you, you are doing a good job. Dr. Zink was raised in Colorado with physician parents. She was no stranger to Alaska. She worked as a mountaineering guide in Alaska during college. So after getting her M.D. from Stanford, she made her way back to our great State 11 years ago and has worked as an ER doctor in the Matanuska Valley. Last July, she was with her family in Bhutan on a yearlong sabbatical when she got a call from Adam Crum, asking her to come to be the State's Chief Medical Officer. Commissioner Crum, speaking like a true Big Ten football player, said: ``She was my number 1 draft pick.'' So Commissioner Crum made the smart decision to bring on Dr. Zink to the medical team and healthcare team that he leads. Commissioner Crum and Dr. Zink have, along with the rest of the country, been closely watching the virus migrate from China to the United States since the early stages. Remember what happened when the State Department brought our diplomats home from Wuhan. A planeload of our diplomats were coming home, and they had to stop in Anchorage on January 28 for a refueling stop. We later learned that nobody on the plane actually had the virus, but Commissioner Crum and Dr. Zink started to get our State ready. They prepared for the worst, contacting local and Tribal medical facilities. They were in constant coordination with the CDC. They were in communications with all the State agencies and divisions and, very, very importantly, with the public. This began their outreach to our citizens. They have continued that frenzied pace ever since, working day and night with the Governor's office to try their best to keep the virus at bay, to keep our citizens healthy, and so far it is working. Like other places, businesses in Alaska have been shut down and are now slowly beginning to open back up. We need to open back up. We need to keep our citizens healthy, but we need to get our economy open and moving again. Among the other precautions, the Governor established a ban for a time on travel throughout the State and a 14-day quarantine still in place for anybody who comes from outside of Alaska to the State. Commissioner Crum said that mandate was probably the most effective thing they have done so far to keep the virus from spreading. Again, that doesn't mean it can't flare up in Alaska. It has flared up in other parts of our country. For example, we have some 200 villages that are not connected by roads and many of which do not have healthcare facilities. If they do have them, they are very, very limited. These communities were hit very hard by the Spanish flu, so there is a lot of trepidation in rural Alaska. We have a fishing season that will start and will begin to bring people in from out of State--thousands of people--to work in Alaska. This is very important for our economy, but the communities need to feel safe. I have raised this issue with the President, the Vice President, and the Chief of Staff, and to their credit they have responded. As a matter of fact, right now we have a doctor from DHS who is going around the State, with Dr. Zink and others, who was sent there by Admiral Brett Giroir, the HHS Assistant Secretary, in charge of testing. They areall out there. They are going to be in Kodiak, Bristol Bay, and Cordova, trying to make sure that our fishing communities are ready. When the admiral called me, he said: We are working with the State, Senator Sullivan. This direction is from the highest senior officials in the White House to get out there and bring resources to your fishing communities, and I will say, working with Dr. Zink, she is one of the top medical officers in the country. This is Admiral Giroir speaking about Dr. Zink. So as you can tell, the utmost diligence is required and so is planning, communication, and bringing people along, particularly when you are asking them to take extreme measures. Again, because of the leadership we have, it is something that I think so far is going well in our State. Commissioner Crum said: Alaskans are contrarian by nature. They want to be educated. They don't want to be forced. When they were told that it was the right thing to do, to comply with the mandates--that if we do this now, it will hurt less later-- they did it. Alaskans did this. Commissioner Crum continued: It was the most painful thing I've ever done--asking people to close their businesses. But not as painful as it was for the people who actually had to shut down their business. But Alaskans complied and we worked together. True leaders emerge during times of crisis. We are grateful that these two leaders emerged for us in Alaska. They are working, along with the Governor and the rest of his team, to do a very good job for our State. Like I said, we aren't past this. We have enormous challenges in our Nation and huge economic challenges in our State, but we know a few things. We have good people at the top who are guiding us, and we know that Alaskans will do the right thing when they are asked by these people. We also know that we are resilient, our State, our people, and our Nation. In a recent interview, Dr. Zink said that one of her big takeaways throughout this entire pandemic is just how important resilience is and how very resilient Alaska is. She said, ``Adversity can bring out the best and worst in people, and we have a choice to grow in response to the challenges or crumble from them.'' Well, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, I am convinced that Alaska will grow from these challenges and that America will grow from these challenges, and I am convinced that what we are seeing all around our State and our Nation is amazing generosity, people working together through these difficult times. We will emerge stronger and more resilient. So I want to thank two leaders in our State who are responsible, in many ways, for getting us through, so far so good, on the health side, Commissioner Crum and Dr. Zink. Thank you for your service. Thank you for your hard work and your sacrifice. Thank you for stepping up and congratulations on being our Alaskans of the Week. I yield the floor.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. SULLIVAN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-14-pt1-PgS2466-5
| null | 643
|
formal
|
blue
| null |
antisemitic
|
The Chaplain, the Reverend Patrick J. Conroy, offered the following prayer: Compassionate and merciful God, thank You for giving us another day. Send down Your spirit upon this Chamber. May Your protective energy banish all malicious elements, and Your healing presence inspire the Members of this people's House to recognize and accept the awesome responsibility that is theirs in this difficult time. Continue to bless all those whose life work is in bringing Your healing to all those stricken by the coronavirus. Finally, on this Peace Officers Memorial Day, we give You thanks for the men and women in blue who stand watch every day throughout our Nation and for us here, at the Capitol. May all Americans be inspired to similarly be of service to one another, that our commonweal might be guaranteed. May everything done today be for Your greater honor and glory. Amen.
|
2020-01-06
|
Unknown
|
House
|
CREC-2020-05-15-pt1-PgH2007-3
| null | 644
|
formal
|
based
| null |
white supremacist
|
Under clause 3 of rule XII, petitions and papers were laid on the clerk's desk and referred as follows: 90. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the Township of Berkeley, New Jersey, relative to Resolution No. 2020-165-R, imploring Congress to put partisanship aside and work together to craft a stimulus package to help Americans; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services. 91. Also, a petition of Mr. Gregory D. Watson, a citizen of Austin, TX, relative to respectfully requesting passage of legislation which would incentivize American-based pharmaceutical manufacturers to produce prescription drugs domestically within the United States so as to eliminate -- or at least reduce -- America's dependency upon the fabrication of such medications in foreign nations and the concomitant danger of drug supply critical shortages; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 92. Also, a petition of the City of Miami, Florida, relative to Resolution No. R-20-0063, urging President Donald J. Trump and the Leaders of the 116th Congress of the United States to encourage all federal agencies to do everything in their power to bring to justice all of those responsible for the shooting down of the Brothers to the Rescue civilian aircraft on February 24, 1996; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 93. Also, a petition of the Legislature of Rockland County, New York, relative to Resolution No. 121 of 2020, supporting the U.S. Congressional Bill (S.3020/H.R.5516), the Commitment to Veteran Support and Outreach Act; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. 94. Also, a petition of the Attorneys General of MA, CA,
|
2020-01-06
|
Unknown
|
House
|
CREC-2020-05-15-pt1-PgH2263-2
| null | 645
|
formal
|
tax cut
| null |
racist
|
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to hold our Nation on high alert. More than 1.4 million Americans have been infected; more than 80,000 lives have been tragically lost; and the livelihoods of tens of millions of working families have been turned upside down in what seems like the blink of an eye. Our Nation's healthcare system has not been stressed by contagion on this scale in over a century, and unemployment has not been this high since the Second World War. A new generation of American heroes--from medical professionals, to lab researchers, to grocery store workers, to custodians and janitors, to community volunteers--has been called up to the frontlines to serve its neighbors and our country. So, for several weeks now, the Senate has counted ourselves among those ranks of essential workers. They are showing up for our country, so we are showing up for them. With respect to the pandemic itself, we are conducting rigorous oversight of the Senate's historic CARES Act rescue package and are helping to plan the pivot toward reopening. Last week, Chairman Alexander and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions engaged with Dr. Fauci, Dr. Redfield, Admiral Giroir, and other top experts to discuss paths for schools and businesses to reopen, and numbers of our colleagues are joining me and Senator Cornyn in thinking proactively about the issue of legal liability that could crush the recovery on the runway. We need strong legal protections to ensure that our historic recovery efforts are not drained away from healthcare workers, schools, and universities or small businesses in order to line the pockets of trial lawyers. At the same time, we have kept our eye on the ball on other significant global challenges. Last week, on a bipartisan basis, the Senate reauthorized critical surveillance authorities for our national security professionals. We also made sure to include important new reforms to begin to address the abuses that marred the 2016 election,the disturbing details of which are continuing to come to light every day. Our action on that subject is not finished. Thanks to leadership from Senator Rubio, we passed legislation to continue ratcheting up the pressure on the Chinese Communist Party. In this case, our bill will shed new light and impose new consequences for the egregious abuses against the Uyghur people and other Muslim minorities. We also confirmed well-qualified nominees to important roles at the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In other words, we have done more for the American people in 2 weeks on this side of the Capitol than the House of Representatives has done in the last 2 months. In the two months that the House Democrats have spent away from their duty stations, they have seemingly given themselves just one assignment--to draft an enormous political messaging bill and brand it as coronavirus relief. Yet, even on this basis, they have failed. The 1,800-page doorstop that Speaker Pelosi dropped last week was appropriately greeted as the legislative equivalent of a standup comedy. There were tax hikes on small businesses in the midst of a small business crisis, and there were targeted tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the bluest States. There were two separate taxpayer-funded studies on diversity and inclusion in the market for marijuana. In sum, it was a $3 trillion wish list slapped together in a clumsy effort to never let a good crisis go to waste--serious work here in the Senate and partisanship pointlessness over in the House. The Senate will stay on course and continue our serious work at this serious time. Tomorrow morning, our colleagues on the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs will hear from Secretary Mnuchin and Fed Chairman Powell on the latest status of the CARES Act implementation efforts. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will meet this week to consider the nomination of Brian Miller to serve as Special Inspector General for the pandemic recovery programs. The Special Committee on Aging will be examining the challenges facing American seniors during this pandemic as both the virus itself and the social distancing measures take a heavy toll on older Americans. Of course, we will continue to uphold our responsibilities beyond the scope of COVID-19. We will consider more nominations to the Federal Election Commission and to the Federal bench. Tomorrow, our colleagues on the Intelligence Committee will vote on reporting the nomination of John Ratcliffe to serve as Director of National Intelligence. This role is essential for monitoring and countering evolving threats from Russia to China, to terrorist groups, and for ensuring the intelligence community's important work is not tainted by partisan bias or political weaponization. We have a busy week ahead of us. This pandemic is not going to defeat itself; a careful reopening will not plan itself; and our Nation's other challenges are not about to politely step aside in the meantime. All kinds of American heroes across the country are tackling the coronavirus head on. We are going to do all we can to keep them safe and supported while they do.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. McCONNELL
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-18-pt1-PgS2469-8
| null | 646
|
formal
|
tax cuts
| null |
racist
|
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to hold our Nation on high alert. More than 1.4 million Americans have been infected; more than 80,000 lives have been tragically lost; and the livelihoods of tens of millions of working families have been turned upside down in what seems like the blink of an eye. Our Nation's healthcare system has not been stressed by contagion on this scale in over a century, and unemployment has not been this high since the Second World War. A new generation of American heroes--from medical professionals, to lab researchers, to grocery store workers, to custodians and janitors, to community volunteers--has been called up to the frontlines to serve its neighbors and our country. So, for several weeks now, the Senate has counted ourselves among those ranks of essential workers. They are showing up for our country, so we are showing up for them. With respect to the pandemic itself, we are conducting rigorous oversight of the Senate's historic CARES Act rescue package and are helping to plan the pivot toward reopening. Last week, Chairman Alexander and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions engaged with Dr. Fauci, Dr. Redfield, Admiral Giroir, and other top experts to discuss paths for schools and businesses to reopen, and numbers of our colleagues are joining me and Senator Cornyn in thinking proactively about the issue of legal liability that could crush the recovery on the runway. We need strong legal protections to ensure that our historic recovery efforts are not drained away from healthcare workers, schools, and universities or small businesses in order to line the pockets of trial lawyers. At the same time, we have kept our eye on the ball on other significant global challenges. Last week, on a bipartisan basis, the Senate reauthorized critical surveillance authorities for our national security professionals. We also made sure to include important new reforms to begin to address the abuses that marred the 2016 election,the disturbing details of which are continuing to come to light every day. Our action on that subject is not finished. Thanks to leadership from Senator Rubio, we passed legislation to continue ratcheting up the pressure on the Chinese Communist Party. In this case, our bill will shed new light and impose new consequences for the egregious abuses against the Uyghur people and other Muslim minorities. We also confirmed well-qualified nominees to important roles at the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In other words, we have done more for the American people in 2 weeks on this side of the Capitol than the House of Representatives has done in the last 2 months. In the two months that the House Democrats have spent away from their duty stations, they have seemingly given themselves just one assignment--to draft an enormous political messaging bill and brand it as coronavirus relief. Yet, even on this basis, they have failed. The 1,800-page doorstop that Speaker Pelosi dropped last week was appropriately greeted as the legislative equivalent of a standup comedy. There were tax hikes on small businesses in the midst of a small business crisis, and there were targeted tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the bluest States. There were two separate taxpayer-funded studies on diversity and inclusion in the market for marijuana. In sum, it was a $3 trillion wish list slapped together in a clumsy effort to never let a good crisis go to waste--serious work here in the Senate and partisanship pointlessness over in the House. The Senate will stay on course and continue our serious work at this serious time. Tomorrow morning, our colleagues on the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs will hear from Secretary Mnuchin and Fed Chairman Powell on the latest status of the CARES Act implementation efforts. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will meet this week to consider the nomination of Brian Miller to serve as Special Inspector General for the pandemic recovery programs. The Special Committee on Aging will be examining the challenges facing American seniors during this pandemic as both the virus itself and the social distancing measures take a heavy toll on older Americans. Of course, we will continue to uphold our responsibilities beyond the scope of COVID-19. We will consider more nominations to the Federal Election Commission and to the Federal bench. Tomorrow, our colleagues on the Intelligence Committee will vote on reporting the nomination of John Ratcliffe to serve as Director of National Intelligence. This role is essential for monitoring and countering evolving threats from Russia to China, to terrorist groups, and for ensuring the intelligence community's important work is not tainted by partisan bias or political weaponization. We have a busy week ahead of us. This pandemic is not going to defeat itself; a careful reopening will not plan itself; and our Nation's other challenges are not about to politely step aside in the meantime. All kinds of American heroes across the country are tackling the coronavirus head on. We are going to do all we can to keep them safe and supported while they do.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. McCONNELL
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-18-pt1-PgS2469-8
| null | 647
|
formal
|
the Fed
| null |
antisemitic
|
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to hold our Nation on high alert. More than 1.4 million Americans have been infected; more than 80,000 lives have been tragically lost; and the livelihoods of tens of millions of working families have been turned upside down in what seems like the blink of an eye. Our Nation's healthcare system has not been stressed by contagion on this scale in over a century, and unemployment has not been this high since the Second World War. A new generation of American heroes--from medical professionals, to lab researchers, to grocery store workers, to custodians and janitors, to community volunteers--has been called up to the frontlines to serve its neighbors and our country. So, for several weeks now, the Senate has counted ourselves among those ranks of essential workers. They are showing up for our country, so we are showing up for them. With respect to the pandemic itself, we are conducting rigorous oversight of the Senate's historic CARES Act rescue package and are helping to plan the pivot toward reopening. Last week, Chairman Alexander and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions engaged with Dr. Fauci, Dr. Redfield, Admiral Giroir, and other top experts to discuss paths for schools and businesses to reopen, and numbers of our colleagues are joining me and Senator Cornyn in thinking proactively about the issue of legal liability that could crush the recovery on the runway. We need strong legal protections to ensure that our historic recovery efforts are not drained away from healthcare workers, schools, and universities or small businesses in order to line the pockets of trial lawyers. At the same time, we have kept our eye on the ball on other significant global challenges. Last week, on a bipartisan basis, the Senate reauthorized critical surveillance authorities for our national security professionals. We also made sure to include important new reforms to begin to address the abuses that marred the 2016 election,the disturbing details of which are continuing to come to light every day. Our action on that subject is not finished. Thanks to leadership from Senator Rubio, we passed legislation to continue ratcheting up the pressure on the Chinese Communist Party. In this case, our bill will shed new light and impose new consequences for the egregious abuses against the Uyghur people and other Muslim minorities. We also confirmed well-qualified nominees to important roles at the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In other words, we have done more for the American people in 2 weeks on this side of the Capitol than the House of Representatives has done in the last 2 months. In the two months that the House Democrats have spent away from their duty stations, they have seemingly given themselves just one assignment--to draft an enormous political messaging bill and brand it as coronavirus relief. Yet, even on this basis, they have failed. The 1,800-page doorstop that Speaker Pelosi dropped last week was appropriately greeted as the legislative equivalent of a standup comedy. There were tax hikes on small businesses in the midst of a small business crisis, and there were targeted tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the bluest States. There were two separate taxpayer-funded studies on diversity and inclusion in the market for marijuana. In sum, it was a $3 trillion wish list slapped together in a clumsy effort to never let a good crisis go to waste--serious work here in the Senate and partisanship pointlessness over in the House. The Senate will stay on course and continue our serious work at this serious time. Tomorrow morning, our colleagues on the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs will hear from Secretary Mnuchin and Fed Chairman Powell on the latest status of the CARES Act implementation efforts. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will meet this week to consider the nomination of Brian Miller to serve as Special Inspector General for the pandemic recovery programs. The Special Committee on Aging will be examining the challenges facing American seniors during this pandemic as both the virus itself and the social distancing measures take a heavy toll on older Americans. Of course, we will continue to uphold our responsibilities beyond the scope of COVID-19. We will consider more nominations to the Federal Election Commission and to the Federal bench. Tomorrow, our colleagues on the Intelligence Committee will vote on reporting the nomination of John Ratcliffe to serve as Director of National Intelligence. This role is essential for monitoring and countering evolving threats from Russia to China, to terrorist groups, and for ensuring the intelligence community's important work is not tainted by partisan bias or political weaponization. We have a busy week ahead of us. This pandemic is not going to defeat itself; a careful reopening will not plan itself; and our Nation's other challenges are not about to politely step aside in the meantime. All kinds of American heroes across the country are tackling the coronavirus head on. We are going to do all we can to keep them safe and supported while they do.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. McCONNELL
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-18-pt1-PgS2469-8
| null | 648
|
formal
|
terrorist
| null |
Islamophobic
|
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to hold our Nation on high alert. More than 1.4 million Americans have been infected; more than 80,000 lives have been tragically lost; and the livelihoods of tens of millions of working families have been turned upside down in what seems like the blink of an eye. Our Nation's healthcare system has not been stressed by contagion on this scale in over a century, and unemployment has not been this high since the Second World War. A new generation of American heroes--from medical professionals, to lab researchers, to grocery store workers, to custodians and janitors, to community volunteers--has been called up to the frontlines to serve its neighbors and our country. So, for several weeks now, the Senate has counted ourselves among those ranks of essential workers. They are showing up for our country, so we are showing up for them. With respect to the pandemic itself, we are conducting rigorous oversight of the Senate's historic CARES Act rescue package and are helping to plan the pivot toward reopening. Last week, Chairman Alexander and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions engaged with Dr. Fauci, Dr. Redfield, Admiral Giroir, and other top experts to discuss paths for schools and businesses to reopen, and numbers of our colleagues are joining me and Senator Cornyn in thinking proactively about the issue of legal liability that could crush the recovery on the runway. We need strong legal protections to ensure that our historic recovery efforts are not drained away from healthcare workers, schools, and universities or small businesses in order to line the pockets of trial lawyers. At the same time, we have kept our eye on the ball on other significant global challenges. Last week, on a bipartisan basis, the Senate reauthorized critical surveillance authorities for our national security professionals. We also made sure to include important new reforms to begin to address the abuses that marred the 2016 election,the disturbing details of which are continuing to come to light every day. Our action on that subject is not finished. Thanks to leadership from Senator Rubio, we passed legislation to continue ratcheting up the pressure on the Chinese Communist Party. In this case, our bill will shed new light and impose new consequences for the egregious abuses against the Uyghur people and other Muslim minorities. We also confirmed well-qualified nominees to important roles at the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In other words, we have done more for the American people in 2 weeks on this side of the Capitol than the House of Representatives has done in the last 2 months. In the two months that the House Democrats have spent away from their duty stations, they have seemingly given themselves just one assignment--to draft an enormous political messaging bill and brand it as coronavirus relief. Yet, even on this basis, they have failed. The 1,800-page doorstop that Speaker Pelosi dropped last week was appropriately greeted as the legislative equivalent of a standup comedy. There were tax hikes on small businesses in the midst of a small business crisis, and there were targeted tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the bluest States. There were two separate taxpayer-funded studies on diversity and inclusion in the market for marijuana. In sum, it was a $3 trillion wish list slapped together in a clumsy effort to never let a good crisis go to waste--serious work here in the Senate and partisanship pointlessness over in the House. The Senate will stay on course and continue our serious work at this serious time. Tomorrow morning, our colleagues on the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs will hear from Secretary Mnuchin and Fed Chairman Powell on the latest status of the CARES Act implementation efforts. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will meet this week to consider the nomination of Brian Miller to serve as Special Inspector General for the pandemic recovery programs. The Special Committee on Aging will be examining the challenges facing American seniors during this pandemic as both the virus itself and the social distancing measures take a heavy toll on older Americans. Of course, we will continue to uphold our responsibilities beyond the scope of COVID-19. We will consider more nominations to the Federal Election Commission and to the Federal bench. Tomorrow, our colleagues on the Intelligence Committee will vote on reporting the nomination of John Ratcliffe to serve as Director of National Intelligence. This role is essential for monitoring and countering evolving threats from Russia to China, to terrorist groups, and for ensuring the intelligence community's important work is not tainted by partisan bias or political weaponization. We have a busy week ahead of us. This pandemic is not going to defeat itself; a careful reopening will not plan itself; and our Nation's other challenges are not about to politely step aside in the meantime. All kinds of American heroes across the country are tackling the coronavirus head on. We are going to do all we can to keep them safe and supported while they do.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. McCONNELL
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-18-pt1-PgS2469-8
| null | 649
|
formal
|
working families
| null |
racist
|
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to hold our Nation on high alert. More than 1.4 million Americans have been infected; more than 80,000 lives have been tragically lost; and the livelihoods of tens of millions of working families have been turned upside down in what seems like the blink of an eye. Our Nation's healthcare system has not been stressed by contagion on this scale in over a century, and unemployment has not been this high since the Second World War. A new generation of American heroes--from medical professionals, to lab researchers, to grocery store workers, to custodians and janitors, to community volunteers--has been called up to the frontlines to serve its neighbors and our country. So, for several weeks now, the Senate has counted ourselves among those ranks of essential workers. They are showing up for our country, so we are showing up for them. With respect to the pandemic itself, we are conducting rigorous oversight of the Senate's historic CARES Act rescue package and are helping to plan the pivot toward reopening. Last week, Chairman Alexander and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions engaged with Dr. Fauci, Dr. Redfield, Admiral Giroir, and other top experts to discuss paths for schools and businesses to reopen, and numbers of our colleagues are joining me and Senator Cornyn in thinking proactively about the issue of legal liability that could crush the recovery on the runway. We need strong legal protections to ensure that our historic recovery efforts are not drained away from healthcare workers, schools, and universities or small businesses in order to line the pockets of trial lawyers. At the same time, we have kept our eye on the ball on other significant global challenges. Last week, on a bipartisan basis, the Senate reauthorized critical surveillance authorities for our national security professionals. We also made sure to include important new reforms to begin to address the abuses that marred the 2016 election,the disturbing details of which are continuing to come to light every day. Our action on that subject is not finished. Thanks to leadership from Senator Rubio, we passed legislation to continue ratcheting up the pressure on the Chinese Communist Party. In this case, our bill will shed new light and impose new consequences for the egregious abuses against the Uyghur people and other Muslim minorities. We also confirmed well-qualified nominees to important roles at the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In other words, we have done more for the American people in 2 weeks on this side of the Capitol than the House of Representatives has done in the last 2 months. In the two months that the House Democrats have spent away from their duty stations, they have seemingly given themselves just one assignment--to draft an enormous political messaging bill and brand it as coronavirus relief. Yet, even on this basis, they have failed. The 1,800-page doorstop that Speaker Pelosi dropped last week was appropriately greeted as the legislative equivalent of a standup comedy. There were tax hikes on small businesses in the midst of a small business crisis, and there were targeted tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the bluest States. There were two separate taxpayer-funded studies on diversity and inclusion in the market for marijuana. In sum, it was a $3 trillion wish list slapped together in a clumsy effort to never let a good crisis go to waste--serious work here in the Senate and partisanship pointlessness over in the House. The Senate will stay on course and continue our serious work at this serious time. Tomorrow morning, our colleagues on the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs will hear from Secretary Mnuchin and Fed Chairman Powell on the latest status of the CARES Act implementation efforts. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will meet this week to consider the nomination of Brian Miller to serve as Special Inspector General for the pandemic recovery programs. The Special Committee on Aging will be examining the challenges facing American seniors during this pandemic as both the virus itself and the social distancing measures take a heavy toll on older Americans. Of course, we will continue to uphold our responsibilities beyond the scope of COVID-19. We will consider more nominations to the Federal Election Commission and to the Federal bench. Tomorrow, our colleagues on the Intelligence Committee will vote on reporting the nomination of John Ratcliffe to serve as Director of National Intelligence. This role is essential for monitoring and countering evolving threats from Russia to China, to terrorist groups, and for ensuring the intelligence community's important work is not tainted by partisan bias or political weaponization. We have a busy week ahead of us. This pandemic is not going to defeat itself; a careful reopening will not plan itself; and our Nation's other challenges are not about to politely step aside in the meantime. All kinds of American heroes across the country are tackling the coronavirus head on. We are going to do all we can to keep them safe and supported while they do.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. McCONNELL
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-18-pt1-PgS2469-8
| null | 650
|
formal
|
terrorism
| null |
Islamophobic
|
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 89, adoption of amendment No. 1583, to remove internet website browsing information and search history from scope of authority to access certain business records for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations. On vote No. 89, had I been present, I would have voted yea. I was also necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 90, adoption of amendment No. 1584, to improve the amicus provisions and require the disclosure of relevant information. On vote No. 90, had I been present, I would have voted yea.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mrs. MURRAY
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-18-pt1-PgS2479-4
| null | 651
|
formal
|
based
| null |
white supremacist
|
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, each year, I look forward to National Foster Care Month as an opportunity to honor the more than 440,000 children and youth in foster care nationwide. It is also an opportunity to honor the foster and kinship families and child welfare workers who support them. This year, in particular, the importance of supporting the children, youth, families and skilled workers in the foster care system has been underscored by the devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is essential that Congress not only honor those who give and receive care as part of this system, but also those who take meaningful action to protect families, children, youth, and workers from the spread of the virus. In my home State of Oregon, more than 11,000 children and youth enter foster care in a given year, and about 7,900 children and youth are living in out-of-home placements on any given day. Oregon provides transition services to about 1,350 young adults, but many continue to struggle to find work, go to college, or complete technical training. The COVID-19 virus has hit these older youth particularly hard. As we consider actions to help the nation weather this pandemic, I would like to recognize a nonprofit organization in my State that represents a critical part of the response to COVID-19 for children and youth in the foster care system and those who have aged out of the system without finding a home to call their own. FosterClub is based in a beautiful town on the Oregon coast, Seaside. FosterClub is marking its 20th anniversary working to improve the lives of children and youth in foster care by connecting them to resources, teaching them how to become self advocates, and helping elevate their lived experiences and voices to members of Congress. By doing so, they are able to inform positive changes in our federal foster care system. And that is what this month is about: honoring the strength of those currently in and those who have exited the foster care system. It is about listening to their experiences and their needs. Over the years, I have been proud to work with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to craft and get across the finish line legislation to strengthen and improve the foster care policies in Oregon and around the country. Not too long ago, then-Chairman Orrin Hatch and I were able to come together and pass into law the landmark Family First Prevention Services Act, commonly known as Family First. Family First was Children Defense Fund Founder Marion Wright Edelman's vision for a better Federalfoster care system focused on helping families stay together. This bipartisan legislation transformed the child welfare system to provide parents the help they need to prevent the trauma that occurs when children and youth are removed unnecessarily from their homes and placed in foster care. I remain committed to responding to the needs of children and youth in foster care and am dedicated to pursuing bipartisan ways to address the challenges faced by children, youth, families, and workers in the foster care system and especially now during the COVID-19 public health emergency. I call on my colleagues, especially those across the aisle, to remember our Nation's foster care recipients and acknowledge the strain our Nation's most vulnerable are facing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we work towards future ways to address the COVID-19 pandemic, we must act swiftly to provide support for the children, youth, families, and workforce involved in the foster care system and especially the young adults who have aged out of the system without finding a forever home. I encourage my colleagues to listen carefully to the voices of children and youth impacted by the foster care system, act quickly to support these young people through this pandemic and help them transition to adulthood successfully. They deserve nothing less from their representatives in Congress.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. WYDEN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-18-pt1-PgS2479-5
| null | 652
|
formal
|
welfare
| null |
racist
|
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, each year, I look forward to National Foster Care Month as an opportunity to honor the more than 440,000 children and youth in foster care nationwide. It is also an opportunity to honor the foster and kinship families and child welfare workers who support them. This year, in particular, the importance of supporting the children, youth, families and skilled workers in the foster care system has been underscored by the devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is essential that Congress not only honor those who give and receive care as part of this system, but also those who take meaningful action to protect families, children, youth, and workers from the spread of the virus. In my home State of Oregon, more than 11,000 children and youth enter foster care in a given year, and about 7,900 children and youth are living in out-of-home placements on any given day. Oregon provides transition services to about 1,350 young adults, but many continue to struggle to find work, go to college, or complete technical training. The COVID-19 virus has hit these older youth particularly hard. As we consider actions to help the nation weather this pandemic, I would like to recognize a nonprofit organization in my State that represents a critical part of the response to COVID-19 for children and youth in the foster care system and those who have aged out of the system without finding a home to call their own. FosterClub is based in a beautiful town on the Oregon coast, Seaside. FosterClub is marking its 20th anniversary working to improve the lives of children and youth in foster care by connecting them to resources, teaching them how to become self advocates, and helping elevate their lived experiences and voices to members of Congress. By doing so, they are able to inform positive changes in our federal foster care system. And that is what this month is about: honoring the strength of those currently in and those who have exited the foster care system. It is about listening to their experiences and their needs. Over the years, I have been proud to work with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to craft and get across the finish line legislation to strengthen and improve the foster care policies in Oregon and around the country. Not too long ago, then-Chairman Orrin Hatch and I were able to come together and pass into law the landmark Family First Prevention Services Act, commonly known as Family First. Family First was Children Defense Fund Founder Marion Wright Edelman's vision for a better Federalfoster care system focused on helping families stay together. This bipartisan legislation transformed the child welfare system to provide parents the help they need to prevent the trauma that occurs when children and youth are removed unnecessarily from their homes and placed in foster care. I remain committed to responding to the needs of children and youth in foster care and am dedicated to pursuing bipartisan ways to address the challenges faced by children, youth, families, and workers in the foster care system and especially now during the COVID-19 public health emergency. I call on my colleagues, especially those across the aisle, to remember our Nation's foster care recipients and acknowledge the strain our Nation's most vulnerable are facing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we work towards future ways to address the COVID-19 pandemic, we must act swiftly to provide support for the children, youth, families, and workforce involved in the foster care system and especially the young adults who have aged out of the system without finding a forever home. I encourage my colleagues to listen carefully to the voices of children and youth impacted by the foster care system, act quickly to support these young people through this pandemic and help them transition to adulthood successfully. They deserve nothing less from their representatives in Congress.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. WYDEN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-18-pt1-PgS2479-5
| null | 653
|
formal
|
XX
| null |
transphobic
|
The SPEAKER. Under clause 5(d) of rule XX, the Chair announces to the House that, in light of the administration of the oath of office to the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Wisconsin, the whole number of the House is 432.
|
2020-01-06
|
The SPEAKER
|
House
|
CREC-2020-05-19-pt1-PgH2267-2
| null | 654
|
formal
|
based
| null |
white supremacist
|
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the coronavirus pandemic continues to challenge our Nation, and the Senate is here working for the American people. Our committees have called in experts like Dr. Fauci and leaders like Chairman Powell to discuss the CARES Act and the path toward reopening. We are tracking the effects of the largest rescue package ever and are considering next steps, like strong legal protections so that doctors, small businesses, schoolteachers, and universities do not face a second epidemic of frivolous lawsuits. The Senate is also staying on top of other threats that predated COVID-19--the meddling of Putin's Russia, the brutal Chinese Communist Party, rogue states like Iran and North Korea, foreign terrorists such as ISIS. Two weeks ago, we overwhelmingly confirmed an impressive leader for the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, whom Acting DNI Grenell has announced will play a central role in briefing candidates and campaigns on foreign threats against our elections. Today, our colleagues on the Intelligence Committee, now led by ActingChairman Rubio, will report out the President's nominee to be the next Director of National Intelligence, and, last week, we reauthorized essential tools that our intelligence community needs to defend our homeland, track our enemies, and protect Americans. But we didn't stop there. Over the last several years, we have been painfully reminded that our Nation and our liberties are not only threatened from without. The fabric of our country is also hurt when tools and capabilities that are meant to keep us safe are abused in ways that are, at best, reckless, sloppy, and unaccountable--or, worse, polluted by political bias. In 2016, the FBI embarked on a counterintelligence investigation against Donald Trump's campaign for the Presidency. Federal law enforcement used taxpayer money to scrutinize a political campaign in the middle of a democratic election. You would have thought such a radical step must have sprung from an air-tight justification. Certainly, you would think the outgoing Obama administration should only have used the awesome power of the Federal Government to pry into their political rivals if they had had a slam-dunk basis for doing so, but that is not what they had. In one instance, the FBI got permission to surveil a Trump associate by telling half-truths, blurring evidence, and citing sketchy sources like a dossier of partisan opposition research that had been funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC. Here is how even the New York Times explained the recent findings of the Justice Department's inspector general: ``The FBI had cherry-picked and misstated evidence about the Trump adviser . . . when seeking permission to wiretap him.'' That was from the New York Times. So an American citizen's campaign for the American Presidency was treated like a hostile foreign power by our own law enforcement, in part, because the Democratic-led executive branch manipulated documents, hid contrary evidence, and made a DNC-funded dossier a launch pad for an investigation. The inspector general counted seven significant inaccuracies and omissions. Here is his report: We identified multiple instances in which factual assertions relied upon in the [FBI's] FISA application were inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation based upon information the FBI had in its possession at the time the application was filed. Did you catch that last part? It was based upon information the FBI had in its possession at the time the application was filed. So we are either talking about gross incompetence or intentional bias. Does any Senator think it is acceptable for any Federal warrant application to include seven significant inaccuracies and omissions? But this wasn't just a run-of-the-mill warrant; it was a FISA warrant to snoop on a Presidential campaign. This is just one of the realities that President Trump's Democratic critics spent years calling conspiracy theories or inventions of the President's mind. Yet here it is in black and white from exactly the kind of independent inspector general the Democrats rushed to embrace when convenient. Sadly, this was no isolated incident. Just recently, Attorney General Barr has had to take the incredible step of unwinding the DOJ prosecution of another former Trump adviser because the government's case against him was unfair and distorted as well. It was largely on the basis of these proceedings that the Democrats and the media spent years being fixated on wild theories of Russian collusion, but upon investigation, the Mueller investigation--remember that one?--it is those wild allegations that collapsed along with the credibility of several of these investigations that helped to create the cloud of suspicion in the first place. In the words of our distinguished Attorney General: The proper investigative and prosecutorial standards of the Department of Justice were abused. . . . We saw two different standards of justice emerge, one that applied to President Trump and his associates and the other that applied to everybody else. We can't allow this ever to happen again. That is from the Attorney General. Oh, and by the way, as if this debacle needed even more shocking behavior, I understand a Federal judge may try to continue prosecuting one of these cases even though the prosecution itself wants to drop it. The judge has taken it upon himself to go browsing for other hostile parties. Obviously, that subverts our constitutional order in which the executive alone decides whether to prosecute cases So, look, no matter what some Washington Democrats may try to claim, you are not crazy or a conspiracy theorist if you see a pattern of institutional unfairness toward this President. You would have to be blind not to see one. All of this is why the Senate passed important FISA reforms in last week's bill--to help bring accountability and transparency into that flawed process--and we aren't nearly finished. As soon as possible, the full Senate will vote on Mr. Ratcliffe's nomination. The President will have a Senate-confirmed DNI who can pursue the vital national security work of our tireless intelligence community while he can also ensure that the IC stays out of politics and out of the papers. Just yesterday, Chairman Graham announced the Committee on the Judiciary will vote on a serious new set of subpoenas so the Senate can hear directly from key players like James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Loretta Lynch, and many others to continue getting to the bottom of this. Let me say that again. The Senate Republicans are taking steps to issue subpoenas to a wide variety of Obama administration officials who have some relationship to the abuses I have just laid out. The American people deserve answers about how such abuses could happen, and we intend to get those answers. I have been a strong supporter of law enforcement and the intelligence community during my career. The American people sleep safer because dedicated people are protecting our country and bringing our foes to justice. It is precisely because I support these missions that I feel so strongly this malpractice cannot be tolerated and must never be repeated.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. McCONNELL
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-19-pt1-PgS2481-6
| null | 655
|
formal
|
the Fed
| null |
antisemitic
|
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the coronavirus pandemic continues to challenge our Nation, and the Senate is here working for the American people. Our committees have called in experts like Dr. Fauci and leaders like Chairman Powell to discuss the CARES Act and the path toward reopening. We are tracking the effects of the largest rescue package ever and are considering next steps, like strong legal protections so that doctors, small businesses, schoolteachers, and universities do not face a second epidemic of frivolous lawsuits. The Senate is also staying on top of other threats that predated COVID-19--the meddling of Putin's Russia, the brutal Chinese Communist Party, rogue states like Iran and North Korea, foreign terrorists such as ISIS. Two weeks ago, we overwhelmingly confirmed an impressive leader for the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, whom Acting DNI Grenell has announced will play a central role in briefing candidates and campaigns on foreign threats against our elections. Today, our colleagues on the Intelligence Committee, now led by ActingChairman Rubio, will report out the President's nominee to be the next Director of National Intelligence, and, last week, we reauthorized essential tools that our intelligence community needs to defend our homeland, track our enemies, and protect Americans. But we didn't stop there. Over the last several years, we have been painfully reminded that our Nation and our liberties are not only threatened from without. The fabric of our country is also hurt when tools and capabilities that are meant to keep us safe are abused in ways that are, at best, reckless, sloppy, and unaccountable--or, worse, polluted by political bias. In 2016, the FBI embarked on a counterintelligence investigation against Donald Trump's campaign for the Presidency. Federal law enforcement used taxpayer money to scrutinize a political campaign in the middle of a democratic election. You would have thought such a radical step must have sprung from an air-tight justification. Certainly, you would think the outgoing Obama administration should only have used the awesome power of the Federal Government to pry into their political rivals if they had had a slam-dunk basis for doing so, but that is not what they had. In one instance, the FBI got permission to surveil a Trump associate by telling half-truths, blurring evidence, and citing sketchy sources like a dossier of partisan opposition research that had been funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC. Here is how even the New York Times explained the recent findings of the Justice Department's inspector general: ``The FBI had cherry-picked and misstated evidence about the Trump adviser . . . when seeking permission to wiretap him.'' That was from the New York Times. So an American citizen's campaign for the American Presidency was treated like a hostile foreign power by our own law enforcement, in part, because the Democratic-led executive branch manipulated documents, hid contrary evidence, and made a DNC-funded dossier a launch pad for an investigation. The inspector general counted seven significant inaccuracies and omissions. Here is his report: We identified multiple instances in which factual assertions relied upon in the [FBI's] FISA application were inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation based upon information the FBI had in its possession at the time the application was filed. Did you catch that last part? It was based upon information the FBI had in its possession at the time the application was filed. So we are either talking about gross incompetence or intentional bias. Does any Senator think it is acceptable for any Federal warrant application to include seven significant inaccuracies and omissions? But this wasn't just a run-of-the-mill warrant; it was a FISA warrant to snoop on a Presidential campaign. This is just one of the realities that President Trump's Democratic critics spent years calling conspiracy theories or inventions of the President's mind. Yet here it is in black and white from exactly the kind of independent inspector general the Democrats rushed to embrace when convenient. Sadly, this was no isolated incident. Just recently, Attorney General Barr has had to take the incredible step of unwinding the DOJ prosecution of another former Trump adviser because the government's case against him was unfair and distorted as well. It was largely on the basis of these proceedings that the Democrats and the media spent years being fixated on wild theories of Russian collusion, but upon investigation, the Mueller investigation--remember that one?--it is those wild allegations that collapsed along with the credibility of several of these investigations that helped to create the cloud of suspicion in the first place. In the words of our distinguished Attorney General: The proper investigative and prosecutorial standards of the Department of Justice were abused. . . . We saw two different standards of justice emerge, one that applied to President Trump and his associates and the other that applied to everybody else. We can't allow this ever to happen again. That is from the Attorney General. Oh, and by the way, as if this debacle needed even more shocking behavior, I understand a Federal judge may try to continue prosecuting one of these cases even though the prosecution itself wants to drop it. The judge has taken it upon himself to go browsing for other hostile parties. Obviously, that subverts our constitutional order in which the executive alone decides whether to prosecute cases So, look, no matter what some Washington Democrats may try to claim, you are not crazy or a conspiracy theorist if you see a pattern of institutional unfairness toward this President. You would have to be blind not to see one. All of this is why the Senate passed important FISA reforms in last week's bill--to help bring accountability and transparency into that flawed process--and we aren't nearly finished. As soon as possible, the full Senate will vote on Mr. Ratcliffe's nomination. The President will have a Senate-confirmed DNI who can pursue the vital national security work of our tireless intelligence community while he can also ensure that the IC stays out of politics and out of the papers. Just yesterday, Chairman Graham announced the Committee on the Judiciary will vote on a serious new set of subpoenas so the Senate can hear directly from key players like James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Loretta Lynch, and many others to continue getting to the bottom of this. Let me say that again. The Senate Republicans are taking steps to issue subpoenas to a wide variety of Obama administration officials who have some relationship to the abuses I have just laid out. The American people deserve answers about how such abuses could happen, and we intend to get those answers. I have been a strong supporter of law enforcement and the intelligence community during my career. The American people sleep safer because dedicated people are protecting our country and bringing our foes to justice. It is precisely because I support these missions that I feel so strongly this malpractice cannot be tolerated and must never be repeated.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. McCONNELL
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-19-pt1-PgS2481-6
| null | 656
|
formal
|
terrorists
| null |
Islamophobic
|
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the coronavirus pandemic continues to challenge our Nation, and the Senate is here working for the American people. Our committees have called in experts like Dr. Fauci and leaders like Chairman Powell to discuss the CARES Act and the path toward reopening. We are tracking the effects of the largest rescue package ever and are considering next steps, like strong legal protections so that doctors, small businesses, schoolteachers, and universities do not face a second epidemic of frivolous lawsuits. The Senate is also staying on top of other threats that predated COVID-19--the meddling of Putin's Russia, the brutal Chinese Communist Party, rogue states like Iran and North Korea, foreign terrorists such as ISIS. Two weeks ago, we overwhelmingly confirmed an impressive leader for the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, whom Acting DNI Grenell has announced will play a central role in briefing candidates and campaigns on foreign threats against our elections. Today, our colleagues on the Intelligence Committee, now led by ActingChairman Rubio, will report out the President's nominee to be the next Director of National Intelligence, and, last week, we reauthorized essential tools that our intelligence community needs to defend our homeland, track our enemies, and protect Americans. But we didn't stop there. Over the last several years, we have been painfully reminded that our Nation and our liberties are not only threatened from without. The fabric of our country is also hurt when tools and capabilities that are meant to keep us safe are abused in ways that are, at best, reckless, sloppy, and unaccountable--or, worse, polluted by political bias. In 2016, the FBI embarked on a counterintelligence investigation against Donald Trump's campaign for the Presidency. Federal law enforcement used taxpayer money to scrutinize a political campaign in the middle of a democratic election. You would have thought such a radical step must have sprung from an air-tight justification. Certainly, you would think the outgoing Obama administration should only have used the awesome power of the Federal Government to pry into their political rivals if they had had a slam-dunk basis for doing so, but that is not what they had. In one instance, the FBI got permission to surveil a Trump associate by telling half-truths, blurring evidence, and citing sketchy sources like a dossier of partisan opposition research that had been funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC. Here is how even the New York Times explained the recent findings of the Justice Department's inspector general: ``The FBI had cherry-picked and misstated evidence about the Trump adviser . . . when seeking permission to wiretap him.'' That was from the New York Times. So an American citizen's campaign for the American Presidency was treated like a hostile foreign power by our own law enforcement, in part, because the Democratic-led executive branch manipulated documents, hid contrary evidence, and made a DNC-funded dossier a launch pad for an investigation. The inspector general counted seven significant inaccuracies and omissions. Here is his report: We identified multiple instances in which factual assertions relied upon in the [FBI's] FISA application were inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation based upon information the FBI had in its possession at the time the application was filed. Did you catch that last part? It was based upon information the FBI had in its possession at the time the application was filed. So we are either talking about gross incompetence or intentional bias. Does any Senator think it is acceptable for any Federal warrant application to include seven significant inaccuracies and omissions? But this wasn't just a run-of-the-mill warrant; it was a FISA warrant to snoop on a Presidential campaign. This is just one of the realities that President Trump's Democratic critics spent years calling conspiracy theories or inventions of the President's mind. Yet here it is in black and white from exactly the kind of independent inspector general the Democrats rushed to embrace when convenient. Sadly, this was no isolated incident. Just recently, Attorney General Barr has had to take the incredible step of unwinding the DOJ prosecution of another former Trump adviser because the government's case against him was unfair and distorted as well. It was largely on the basis of these proceedings that the Democrats and the media spent years being fixated on wild theories of Russian collusion, but upon investigation, the Mueller investigation--remember that one?--it is those wild allegations that collapsed along with the credibility of several of these investigations that helped to create the cloud of suspicion in the first place. In the words of our distinguished Attorney General: The proper investigative and prosecutorial standards of the Department of Justice were abused. . . . We saw two different standards of justice emerge, one that applied to President Trump and his associates and the other that applied to everybody else. We can't allow this ever to happen again. That is from the Attorney General. Oh, and by the way, as if this debacle needed even more shocking behavior, I understand a Federal judge may try to continue prosecuting one of these cases even though the prosecution itself wants to drop it. The judge has taken it upon himself to go browsing for other hostile parties. Obviously, that subverts our constitutional order in which the executive alone decides whether to prosecute cases So, look, no matter what some Washington Democrats may try to claim, you are not crazy or a conspiracy theorist if you see a pattern of institutional unfairness toward this President. You would have to be blind not to see one. All of this is why the Senate passed important FISA reforms in last week's bill--to help bring accountability and transparency into that flawed process--and we aren't nearly finished. As soon as possible, the full Senate will vote on Mr. Ratcliffe's nomination. The President will have a Senate-confirmed DNI who can pursue the vital national security work of our tireless intelligence community while he can also ensure that the IC stays out of politics and out of the papers. Just yesterday, Chairman Graham announced the Committee on the Judiciary will vote on a serious new set of subpoenas so the Senate can hear directly from key players like James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Loretta Lynch, and many others to continue getting to the bottom of this. Let me say that again. The Senate Republicans are taking steps to issue subpoenas to a wide variety of Obama administration officials who have some relationship to the abuses I have just laid out. The American people deserve answers about how such abuses could happen, and we intend to get those answers. I have been a strong supporter of law enforcement and the intelligence community during my career. The American people sleep safer because dedicated people are protecting our country and bringing our foes to justice. It is precisely because I support these missions that I feel so strongly this malpractice cannot be tolerated and must never be repeated.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. McCONNELL
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-19-pt1-PgS2481-6
| null | 657
|
formal
|
Federal Reserve
| null |
antisemitic
|
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the Senate Banking Committee this morning will hear testimony from Secretary Mnuchin and Federal Reserve Chairman Powell about the economic distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This testimony from the Secretary and the Chairman of the Fed is one of the requirements that Senate Democrats secured in the CARES Act, and we have been pushing for it to happen for several weeks. The fact that it has taken so long is, once again, one more indication that our Republican Senate colleagues are not focused on the COVID crisis but on other diversionary issues, as witnessed by Leader McConnell's speech, which I will have something to say about in a few minutes. It could not be more urgent that they are testifying. The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown over 35 million people into sudden unemployment, the highest level since the Great Depression. Chairman Powell has said that further layoffs can continue for months. The anguish that so many people feel. Without further action, Powell said, we risk ``prolonged recession and weak recovery,'' with unemployment reaching 20 percent or even 25 percent. In Chairman Powell's words, it may be that Congress has to do more, and the reason we have to do more is to avoid longer damage to the economy. Those are Chairman Powell's words, a nonpolitical appointee by President Trump. Mr. Powell's testimony this morning, hopefully, will jolt my Republican colleagues into action, finally. At the very least, his testimony should awaken them from their slumber and compel some understanding of the scope and urgency of the problem at hand. Maybe his speech will somehow galvanize our Republican colleagues into coming forward and talking about COVID, doing oversight of COVID, and coming up with the kinds of plans that we saw in COVID 4.0 in the House that are so well needed. Maybe they will talk about things like this. Are they for aiding State and local governments? Are they for so many of the things in the bill--more help for hospitals, more help for testing, more money for PPE, more help for those who have lost their jobs, or are they not? All we hear is silence from our Republican colleagues. I sat on the House and Senate Banking Committees for decades. I may hold the record for attendance at hearings with Fed Chairs, so I can state that Chairs of the Federal Reserve, whether appointed by Democratic or Republican Presidents, do not frivolously suggest that more congressional action is taken--rarely, do they do that. They try to avoid it. That is another reason why Chairman Powell's comments are so important. If he feels the need to push this Congress, and particularly this Republican Senate, to act, problems must be deep and real, and most Americans know it, but our Republican Senate colleagues don't seem to. We are looking at an economic situation ``without modern precedent'' in Powell's words. We can either take action to soften the blow to businesses, families, workers, and average folks or, through inaction, prolong the recession and hamstring our Nation's recovery. Up until now, it seems our Republican colleagues are, unfortunately, choosing the latter: no immediate need for urgent action. Amazing. Amazing. This is the greatest crisis America has faced in decades and decades. Now my colleagues like to point out the costs of the House Democratic bill to provide another round of emergency relief. Republican leadership has taken time to assail parts of the Democratic bill that account for 0.0003 percent of the bill. They are not expected to like every single piece, but they are expected by the American people to act, and, mark my words, the American people will force them to act. There are so many costs to inaction, and none other than the Republican-appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve is saying that those costs are likely greater than the costs of any relief bill. When will our Republican Senate colleagues start to get the message Looking at the floor of the U.S. Senate, you would never guess that we are in the middle of a national economic crisis. For 3 weeks, Leader McConnell has not scheduled any legislative business related to the coronavirus. Senate Republican leadership is not even discussing their response to COVID-4 in the House. Instead, this week, the Republican leader has scheduled five rightwing judges for the floor of the Senate. The Republican chairman of the Homeland Security Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow designed to slander the family of the President's political opponent, delving into a Kremlin-concocted conspiracy theory that has no truth and fell over like a dud in the impeachment hearing. Last night, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee announced that his committee will soon consider subpoenas relating to another conspiracy theory pushed by President Trump, this time to try and rewrite the history of Russian interference in the 2016 election to match the fantasy in President Trump's head. What does Leader McConnell devote more of his floor remarks to today? That wild conspiracy theory aimed at somehow smearing the fine reputation that President Obama has well deserved. It is amazing that was the bulk of the speech. Leader McConnell, stop listening to President Trump and his wild theories and listen to the American people. We need action. We need action now. Every day, every week, and now almost every month we wait. The recession gets deeper and worse. More people are unemployed. More people lose their jobs, more small businesses are in jeopardy, and we are talking about some wild theory because President Trump demanded it, when everyone knows the President's penchant for truth is at a bare minimum, as exemplified by his hydroxychloroquine comments last night. Wow. This is unbelievable. In the midst of historic unemployment and economic and health tragedy, Senate Republicans are using their majority to simply block and tackle for the President's reelection campaign. Senate Republicans are using their majority not to tackle the COVID crisis but to block and tackle for the President's reelection campaign. In the midst of a public health crisis, Senate Republicans are diving headfirst into the muck to smear the family--the family--of the President's political opponent. It is such a gross misuse of the power of the majority. We were sent here to do the Nation's business. At the moment, that means helping our constituents through a time of immense challenge and hardship, but Senate Republicans are using their committees to hold fishing expeditions dictated by the President's Twitter feed, which even his supporters don't usually believe. If anyone doubts this is about politics; that this is about Senate Republicans doing the bidding of President Trump's personal political agenda, just remember what House Minority Leader McCarthy said before the last Presidential election. Leader McCarthy went on FOX News bragging that the Republicans put together a Benghazi select committee to bring Hillary Clinton's poll numbers down. Now Senate Republicans are using the same playbook to smear President Trump's political opponents once again. It will not work. The American people know it is a crisis. They know the Republicans are doing nothing right now. They know that this is political folderol to please President Trump and will not solve America's problems. Rightfully, many Americans are just furious at Senate Republicans using their majority to pursue the President's political agenda in a time of national crisis. The President is tweeting insane conspiracy theories, demanding that his water carriers on Capitol Hill make them look legitimate. Instead of focusing on testing capacity and policies to safely reopen our country to help so many individuals and businesses that are in need, the President is telling the press that he has taken an unproven treatment, hydroxychloroquine, for a disease he doesn't have. That is reckless. Please, citizens of America, don't take hydroxychloroquine as a prevention for COVID, and medical experts have said it is not. Remember, it is risky. The FDA has said it has risks. This is a medicine that experts say, at best, may not be effective in treating or preventing COVID-19 and, at worst, causes serious heart problems in patients with certain conditions. It is astonishingly reckless. I don't know why the President did it. Maybe he has family or friends who stand to benefit from the popularity of this drug. It wouldn't be unlike the President that someone called him who said it is a great drug, and he just talks about it. He has no penchant for research or science or even truth. It just pops into his head, and he thinks it sounds good. He thinks it is a diversion from his failures--which are so many--for dealing with COVID. He just says it. He doesn't care if it hurts people. He just says it. But I do know this. If the President was focused on testing or production of PPE or fashioning a careful plan to reopen the country instead of pushing quack medicines and inventing new conspiracies, the country would be in far better shape than it is today, and the country knows it. The majority of Americans don't trust the President to handle this crisis, and Senate Republicans just say how high when he says jump, no matter how off base, false, or unrelated to COVID his theories are
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. SCHUMER
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-19-pt1-PgS2483-3
| null | 658
|
formal
|
the Fed
| null |
antisemitic
|
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the Senate Banking Committee this morning will hear testimony from Secretary Mnuchin and Federal Reserve Chairman Powell about the economic distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This testimony from the Secretary and the Chairman of the Fed is one of the requirements that Senate Democrats secured in the CARES Act, and we have been pushing for it to happen for several weeks. The fact that it has taken so long is, once again, one more indication that our Republican Senate colleagues are not focused on the COVID crisis but on other diversionary issues, as witnessed by Leader McConnell's speech, which I will have something to say about in a few minutes. It could not be more urgent that they are testifying. The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown over 35 million people into sudden unemployment, the highest level since the Great Depression. Chairman Powell has said that further layoffs can continue for months. The anguish that so many people feel. Without further action, Powell said, we risk ``prolonged recession and weak recovery,'' with unemployment reaching 20 percent or even 25 percent. In Chairman Powell's words, it may be that Congress has to do more, and the reason we have to do more is to avoid longer damage to the economy. Those are Chairman Powell's words, a nonpolitical appointee by President Trump. Mr. Powell's testimony this morning, hopefully, will jolt my Republican colleagues into action, finally. At the very least, his testimony should awaken them from their slumber and compel some understanding of the scope and urgency of the problem at hand. Maybe his speech will somehow galvanize our Republican colleagues into coming forward and talking about COVID, doing oversight of COVID, and coming up with the kinds of plans that we saw in COVID 4.0 in the House that are so well needed. Maybe they will talk about things like this. Are they for aiding State and local governments? Are they for so many of the things in the bill--more help for hospitals, more help for testing, more money for PPE, more help for those who have lost their jobs, or are they not? All we hear is silence from our Republican colleagues. I sat on the House and Senate Banking Committees for decades. I may hold the record for attendance at hearings with Fed Chairs, so I can state that Chairs of the Federal Reserve, whether appointed by Democratic or Republican Presidents, do not frivolously suggest that more congressional action is taken--rarely, do they do that. They try to avoid it. That is another reason why Chairman Powell's comments are so important. If he feels the need to push this Congress, and particularly this Republican Senate, to act, problems must be deep and real, and most Americans know it, but our Republican Senate colleagues don't seem to. We are looking at an economic situation ``without modern precedent'' in Powell's words. We can either take action to soften the blow to businesses, families, workers, and average folks or, through inaction, prolong the recession and hamstring our Nation's recovery. Up until now, it seems our Republican colleagues are, unfortunately, choosing the latter: no immediate need for urgent action. Amazing. Amazing. This is the greatest crisis America has faced in decades and decades. Now my colleagues like to point out the costs of the House Democratic bill to provide another round of emergency relief. Republican leadership has taken time to assail parts of the Democratic bill that account for 0.0003 percent of the bill. They are not expected to like every single piece, but they are expected by the American people to act, and, mark my words, the American people will force them to act. There are so many costs to inaction, and none other than the Republican-appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve is saying that those costs are likely greater than the costs of any relief bill. When will our Republican Senate colleagues start to get the message Looking at the floor of the U.S. Senate, you would never guess that we are in the middle of a national economic crisis. For 3 weeks, Leader McConnell has not scheduled any legislative business related to the coronavirus. Senate Republican leadership is not even discussing their response to COVID-4 in the House. Instead, this week, the Republican leader has scheduled five rightwing judges for the floor of the Senate. The Republican chairman of the Homeland Security Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow designed to slander the family of the President's political opponent, delving into a Kremlin-concocted conspiracy theory that has no truth and fell over like a dud in the impeachment hearing. Last night, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee announced that his committee will soon consider subpoenas relating to another conspiracy theory pushed by President Trump, this time to try and rewrite the history of Russian interference in the 2016 election to match the fantasy in President Trump's head. What does Leader McConnell devote more of his floor remarks to today? That wild conspiracy theory aimed at somehow smearing the fine reputation that President Obama has well deserved. It is amazing that was the bulk of the speech. Leader McConnell, stop listening to President Trump and his wild theories and listen to the American people. We need action. We need action now. Every day, every week, and now almost every month we wait. The recession gets deeper and worse. More people are unemployed. More people lose their jobs, more small businesses are in jeopardy, and we are talking about some wild theory because President Trump demanded it, when everyone knows the President's penchant for truth is at a bare minimum, as exemplified by his hydroxychloroquine comments last night. Wow. This is unbelievable. In the midst of historic unemployment and economic and health tragedy, Senate Republicans are using their majority to simply block and tackle for the President's reelection campaign. Senate Republicans are using their majority not to tackle the COVID crisis but to block and tackle for the President's reelection campaign. In the midst of a public health crisis, Senate Republicans are diving headfirst into the muck to smear the family--the family--of the President's political opponent. It is such a gross misuse of the power of the majority. We were sent here to do the Nation's business. At the moment, that means helping our constituents through a time of immense challenge and hardship, but Senate Republicans are using their committees to hold fishing expeditions dictated by the President's Twitter feed, which even his supporters don't usually believe. If anyone doubts this is about politics; that this is about Senate Republicans doing the bidding of President Trump's personal political agenda, just remember what House Minority Leader McCarthy said before the last Presidential election. Leader McCarthy went on FOX News bragging that the Republicans put together a Benghazi select committee to bring Hillary Clinton's poll numbers down. Now Senate Republicans are using the same playbook to smear President Trump's political opponents once again. It will not work. The American people know it is a crisis. They know the Republicans are doing nothing right now. They know that this is political folderol to please President Trump and will not solve America's problems. Rightfully, many Americans are just furious at Senate Republicans using their majority to pursue the President's political agenda in a time of national crisis. The President is tweeting insane conspiracy theories, demanding that his water carriers on Capitol Hill make them look legitimate. Instead of focusing on testing capacity and policies to safely reopen our country to help so many individuals and businesses that are in need, the President is telling the press that he has taken an unproven treatment, hydroxychloroquine, for a disease he doesn't have. That is reckless. Please, citizens of America, don't take hydroxychloroquine as a prevention for COVID, and medical experts have said it is not. Remember, it is risky. The FDA has said it has risks. This is a medicine that experts say, at best, may not be effective in treating or preventing COVID-19 and, at worst, causes serious heart problems in patients with certain conditions. It is astonishingly reckless. I don't know why the President did it. Maybe he has family or friends who stand to benefit from the popularity of this drug. It wouldn't be unlike the President that someone called him who said it is a great drug, and he just talks about it. He has no penchant for research or science or even truth. It just pops into his head, and he thinks it sounds good. He thinks it is a diversion from his failures--which are so many--for dealing with COVID. He just says it. He doesn't care if it hurts people. He just says it. But I do know this. If the President was focused on testing or production of PPE or fashioning a careful plan to reopen the country instead of pushing quack medicines and inventing new conspiracies, the country would be in far better shape than it is today, and the country knows it. The majority of Americans don't trust the President to handle this crisis, and Senate Republicans just say how high when he says jump, no matter how off base, false, or unrelated to COVID his theories are
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. SCHUMER
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-19-pt1-PgS2483-3
| null | 659
|
formal
|
single
| null |
homophobic
|
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the Senate Banking Committee this morning will hear testimony from Secretary Mnuchin and Federal Reserve Chairman Powell about the economic distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This testimony from the Secretary and the Chairman of the Fed is one of the requirements that Senate Democrats secured in the CARES Act, and we have been pushing for it to happen for several weeks. The fact that it has taken so long is, once again, one more indication that our Republican Senate colleagues are not focused on the COVID crisis but on other diversionary issues, as witnessed by Leader McConnell's speech, which I will have something to say about in a few minutes. It could not be more urgent that they are testifying. The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown over 35 million people into sudden unemployment, the highest level since the Great Depression. Chairman Powell has said that further layoffs can continue for months. The anguish that so many people feel. Without further action, Powell said, we risk ``prolonged recession and weak recovery,'' with unemployment reaching 20 percent or even 25 percent. In Chairman Powell's words, it may be that Congress has to do more, and the reason we have to do more is to avoid longer damage to the economy. Those are Chairman Powell's words, a nonpolitical appointee by President Trump. Mr. Powell's testimony this morning, hopefully, will jolt my Republican colleagues into action, finally. At the very least, his testimony should awaken them from their slumber and compel some understanding of the scope and urgency of the problem at hand. Maybe his speech will somehow galvanize our Republican colleagues into coming forward and talking about COVID, doing oversight of COVID, and coming up with the kinds of plans that we saw in COVID 4.0 in the House that are so well needed. Maybe they will talk about things like this. Are they for aiding State and local governments? Are they for so many of the things in the bill--more help for hospitals, more help for testing, more money for PPE, more help for those who have lost their jobs, or are they not? All we hear is silence from our Republican colleagues. I sat on the House and Senate Banking Committees for decades. I may hold the record for attendance at hearings with Fed Chairs, so I can state that Chairs of the Federal Reserve, whether appointed by Democratic or Republican Presidents, do not frivolously suggest that more congressional action is taken--rarely, do they do that. They try to avoid it. That is another reason why Chairman Powell's comments are so important. If he feels the need to push this Congress, and particularly this Republican Senate, to act, problems must be deep and real, and most Americans know it, but our Republican Senate colleagues don't seem to. We are looking at an economic situation ``without modern precedent'' in Powell's words. We can either take action to soften the blow to businesses, families, workers, and average folks or, through inaction, prolong the recession and hamstring our Nation's recovery. Up until now, it seems our Republican colleagues are, unfortunately, choosing the latter: no immediate need for urgent action. Amazing. Amazing. This is the greatest crisis America has faced in decades and decades. Now my colleagues like to point out the costs of the House Democratic bill to provide another round of emergency relief. Republican leadership has taken time to assail parts of the Democratic bill that account for 0.0003 percent of the bill. They are not expected to like every single piece, but they are expected by the American people to act, and, mark my words, the American people will force them to act. There are so many costs to inaction, and none other than the Republican-appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve is saying that those costs are likely greater than the costs of any relief bill. When will our Republican Senate colleagues start to get the message Looking at the floor of the U.S. Senate, you would never guess that we are in the middle of a national economic crisis. For 3 weeks, Leader McConnell has not scheduled any legislative business related to the coronavirus. Senate Republican leadership is not even discussing their response to COVID-4 in the House. Instead, this week, the Republican leader has scheduled five rightwing judges for the floor of the Senate. The Republican chairman of the Homeland Security Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow designed to slander the family of the President's political opponent, delving into a Kremlin-concocted conspiracy theory that has no truth and fell over like a dud in the impeachment hearing. Last night, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee announced that his committee will soon consider subpoenas relating to another conspiracy theory pushed by President Trump, this time to try and rewrite the history of Russian interference in the 2016 election to match the fantasy in President Trump's head. What does Leader McConnell devote more of his floor remarks to today? That wild conspiracy theory aimed at somehow smearing the fine reputation that President Obama has well deserved. It is amazing that was the bulk of the speech. Leader McConnell, stop listening to President Trump and his wild theories and listen to the American people. We need action. We need action now. Every day, every week, and now almost every month we wait. The recession gets deeper and worse. More people are unemployed. More people lose their jobs, more small businesses are in jeopardy, and we are talking about some wild theory because President Trump demanded it, when everyone knows the President's penchant for truth is at a bare minimum, as exemplified by his hydroxychloroquine comments last night. Wow. This is unbelievable. In the midst of historic unemployment and economic and health tragedy, Senate Republicans are using their majority to simply block and tackle for the President's reelection campaign. Senate Republicans are using their majority not to tackle the COVID crisis but to block and tackle for the President's reelection campaign. In the midst of a public health crisis, Senate Republicans are diving headfirst into the muck to smear the family--the family--of the President's political opponent. It is such a gross misuse of the power of the majority. We were sent here to do the Nation's business. At the moment, that means helping our constituents through a time of immense challenge and hardship, but Senate Republicans are using their committees to hold fishing expeditions dictated by the President's Twitter feed, which even his supporters don't usually believe. If anyone doubts this is about politics; that this is about Senate Republicans doing the bidding of President Trump's personal political agenda, just remember what House Minority Leader McCarthy said before the last Presidential election. Leader McCarthy went on FOX News bragging that the Republicans put together a Benghazi select committee to bring Hillary Clinton's poll numbers down. Now Senate Republicans are using the same playbook to smear President Trump's political opponents once again. It will not work. The American people know it is a crisis. They know the Republicans are doing nothing right now. They know that this is political folderol to please President Trump and will not solve America's problems. Rightfully, many Americans are just furious at Senate Republicans using their majority to pursue the President's political agenda in a time of national crisis. The President is tweeting insane conspiracy theories, demanding that his water carriers on Capitol Hill make them look legitimate. Instead of focusing on testing capacity and policies to safely reopen our country to help so many individuals and businesses that are in need, the President is telling the press that he has taken an unproven treatment, hydroxychloroquine, for a disease he doesn't have. That is reckless. Please, citizens of America, don't take hydroxychloroquine as a prevention for COVID, and medical experts have said it is not. Remember, it is risky. The FDA has said it has risks. This is a medicine that experts say, at best, may not be effective in treating or preventing COVID-19 and, at worst, causes serious heart problems in patients with certain conditions. It is astonishingly reckless. I don't know why the President did it. Maybe he has family or friends who stand to benefit from the popularity of this drug. It wouldn't be unlike the President that someone called him who said it is a great drug, and he just talks about it. He has no penchant for research or science or even truth. It just pops into his head, and he thinks it sounds good. He thinks it is a diversion from his failures--which are so many--for dealing with COVID. He just says it. He doesn't care if it hurts people. He just says it. But I do know this. If the President was focused on testing or production of PPE or fashioning a careful plan to reopen the country instead of pushing quack medicines and inventing new conspiracies, the country would be in far better shape than it is today, and the country knows it. The majority of Americans don't trust the President to handle this crisis, and Senate Republicans just say how high when he says jump, no matter how off base, false, or unrelated to COVID his theories are
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. SCHUMER
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-19-pt1-PgS2483-3
| null | 660
|
formal
|
the Fed
| null |
antisemitic
|
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination. The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of James E. Trainor III, of Texas, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission for a term expiring April 30, 2023.
|
2020-01-06
|
The PRESIDING OFFICER
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-19-pt1-PgS2493-2
| null | 661
|
formal
|
welfare
| null |
racist
|
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I give tribute to a lifelong Iowan who has devoted his career in service to families who are mourning the loss of a loved one. From an early age, Charles Yoder knew what he wanted to be when he grew up. He lived next door to the Powell Funeral Home in Wellman, IA. That is where Charlie's precocious path to his lifelong occupation first started. Years later, he graduated from the Worsham College of Mortuary Science in Illinois. He returned home to Washington County, where he manages two funeral homes in Wellman and Kalona. Like many small business people across my State, Charlie's leadership reaches deep into the community. His civic stewardship reflects a character of service to others. He is a member of the Rotary Club, Kalona Chamber of Commerce, Community Foundation of Washington County, and the Dayton Lodge. His public service includes time spent on the Mid-Prairie Community School District Foundation and the Kalona Library. A member of the National Funeral Directors Association, Charlie participated in its leadership conference here in Washington, DC, for the past 3 years. Like so many other events, the national conference this year was cancelled due to COVID-19. That didn't stop Charlie from stepping up to lead and help his profession navigate these difficult times. For the past 4 years as president-elect and president of the Iowa Funeral Directors Association, he developed strong relationships across its eight districts, traveling to each one across the State. Networking strengthened his efforts to update strategic plans and foster continuing education services. This collaboration also helped Iowa funeral directors meet unprecedented challenges from the pandemic. Iowans are known to celebrate the lives of the deceased with large funeral gatherings, attended by many people in the community, who gather to pay their respects and help friends and family mourn the loss of a loved one. Obviously, COVID-19 limited large social gatherings, including graduations, weddings, and funerals. Charlie developed guidelines to help Iowa funeral home directors adapt to the public health crisis and continue providing safe, compassionate, and personalized attention to the people and communities they serve. As caretakers in their respective communities, Charlie did not let COVID-19 redefine their mission to serve with professionalism, empathy, and integrity. Working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Iowa Department of Public Health, Charlie's leadership helped ensure the public welfare was protected and that grieving families and their loved ones remained in good hands. I thank Charlie for service to his community and his vocation. As he steps down as president of the Iowa Funeral Directors Association, I am pleased to learn a member of the next generation plans to follow in her dad's footsteps. I congratulate him and his wife, Dorie, and wish their daughter Morgan all the best as she starts her studies and pursues her dream this fall.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. GRASSLEY
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-19-pt1-PgS2500-4
| null | 662
|
formal
|
the Fed
| null |
antisemitic
|
The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-4532. A communication from the Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Service by Members of the Armed Forces on State and Local Juries'' (RIN0790-AK35) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 14, 2020; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4533. A communication from the Secretary, Division of Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Temporary Amendments to Regulation Crowdfunding'' (Release No. 33-10781) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 14, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4534. A communication from the Chairman, Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Council's 2019 Annual Report to Congress; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4535. A communication from the Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on discretionary appropriations legislation relative to sec. 251(a) (7) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985; to the Committee on the Budget. EC-4536. A communication from the Secretary of Energy, transmitting a legislative proposal entitled ``Amending the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (AMIPA)''; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-4537. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Extension of Certain Timeframes for Employee Benefit Plans, Participants, and Beneficiaries Affected by the COVID-19 Outbreak'' (29 CFR Parts 2560 and 2590) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 14, 2020; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-4538. A communication from the Deputy General Counsel, Office for Civil Rights, Department of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs of Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance'' (RIN1870-AA14) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 13, 2020; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-4539. A communication from the Senior Advisor, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Director of the Indian Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 14, 2020; to the Committee on Indian Affairs
|
2020-01-06
|
Unknown
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-19-pt1-PgS2502-4
| null | 663
|
formal
|
based
| null |
white supremacist
|
Mr. BRAUN (for himself, Mr. Coons, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Bennet, Ms. McSally, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Jones, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Peters, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Smith, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Cramer, Ms. Harris, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Markey, Ms. Cantwell, and Ms. Klobuchar) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 588 Whereas amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (referred to in this preamble as ``ALS'') is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that affects nerve cells in the brain and the spinal cord; Whereas the life expectancy for an individual with ALS is between 2 and 5 years after the date on which the individual receives an ALS diagnosis; Whereas ALS occurs throughout the world with no racial, ethnic, gender, or socioeconomic boundaries; Whereas the 2 different types of ALS are sporadic ALS and familial ALS; Whereas sporadic ALS-- (1) is the most common form of motor neuron disease in the United States; (2) accounts for between 90 and 95 percent of all cases of ALS in the United States; and (3) may affect any individual in any location; Whereas familial ALS (commonly known as ``FALS'')-- (1) is inherited; and (2) accounts for between 5 and 10 percent of all cases of ALS in the United States; Whereas there is a 50 percent chance that each offspring of an individual with familial ALS will inherit the gene mutation for familial ALS and develop the disease; Whereas, on average, the period between the date on which an individual first experiences symptoms of ALS and the date on which the individual is diagnosed with ALS is about 1 year; Whereas the onset of ALS often involves muscle weakness or stiffness, and the progression of ALS results in the further weakening, wasting, and paralysis of-- (1) the muscles of the limbs and trunk; and (2) the muscles that control vital functions, such as speech, swallowing, and breathing; Whereas ALS can strike individuals of any age but predominantly strikes adults; Whereas it is estimated that tens of thousands of individuals in the United States have ALS at any given time; Whereas, based on studies of the population of the United States, slightly more than 5,600 individuals in the United States are diagnosed with ALS each year, and 15 individuals in the United States are diagnosed with ALS each day; Whereas, between 2015 and 2040, the number of ALS cases around the world is expected to increase nearly 70 percent; Whereas the majority of individuals with ALS die of respiratory failure; Whereas military veterans are approximately twice as likely to be diagnosed with ALS than the general public in the United States; Whereas, as of the date of introduction of this resolution, there is no cure for ALS; Whereas the spouses, children, and family members of individuals living with ALS provide support to those individuals with love, day-to-day care, and more; and Whereas an individual with ALS, and the caregivers of such an individual, can be required to bear significant costs for medical care, equipment, and home health care services for the individual as the disease progresses: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates May 2020 as ``ALS Awareness Month''; (2) affirms the dedication of the Senate to working toward securing cures and better treatments for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (referred to in this resolution as ``ALS'') as soon as possible; (3) recognizes the challenges that individuals with medically determined ALS face on a daily basis; and (4) commends the dedication of the family members, friends, organizations, volunteers, researchers, and caregivers across the United States that are working to improve the quality and length of life of ALS patients.
|
2020-01-06
|
Unknown
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-19-pt1-PgS2507-3
| null | 664
|
formal
|
the Fed
| null |
antisemitic
|
2020, AS ``NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK'' Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Ms. Harris, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Carper, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Cramer, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Hassan, Mr. King, Mr. Markey, Mrs. Shaheen, Mrs. Fischer, and Mrs. Feinstein) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 586 Whereas public works infrastructure, facilities, and services are of vital importance to the health, safety, and well-being of the people of the United States; Whereas public works infrastructure, facilities, and services could not be provided without the dedicated efforts of public works professionals, including engineers and administrators, who represent State and local governments throughout the United States; Whereas public works professionals design, build, operate, and maintain the transportation systems, water infrastructure, sewage and refuse disposal systems, public buildings, sanitation and waste management systems, and other structures and facilities that are vital to the people and communities of the United States; Whereas, during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, public works professionals have continued to provide essential services, placing themselves at increased risk of infection; and Whereas understanding the role that public infrastructure plays in protecting the environment, improving public health and safety, contributing to economic vitality, and enhancing the quality of life of every community of the United States is in the interest of the people of the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates the week of May 17 through May 23, 2020, as ``National Public Works Week''; (2) recognizes and celebrates the important contributions that public works professionals make every day to improve-- (A) the public infrastructure of the United States; and (B) the communities that public works professionals serve; and (3) urges individuals and communities throughout the United States to join with representatives of the Federal Government and the American Public Works Association in activities and ceremonies that are designed-- (A) to pay tribute to the public works professionals of the United States; and (B) to recognize the substantial contributions that public works professionals make to the United States.
|
2020-01-06
|
Unknown
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-19-pt1-PgS2507
| null | 665
|
formal
|
single
| null |
homophobic
|
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, week after week, this Capitol has been a study in contrasts. Call it the tale of two Chambers. Over here in the Senate, the lights are on, the doors are open, and we are working for the American people. All month, we have been in session, passing national security legislation, confirming key nominees, and holding hearings on the coronavirus crisis and the effectiveness of the historic rescue package the Senate wrote and the Senate passed. We are heeding medical guidance and taking new precautions, but we are showing up and getting things done. Over across the Rotunda, in the House, crickets--their lights are off. The doors are locked. The people's House has shown up for a grand total of 2 legislative session days since March. Well, 2 days in 8 weeks is a blistering pace. Last week, they flew into town to pass Speaker Pelosi's latest 1,800-page liberal wish list. Diversity and inclusion in the marijuana industry wasn't going to study itself, after all. That had to be an A-1 priority during this crisis. The Speaker's proposal was so unserious and so far left that it could not even unite her own conference. Even after a 2-month sabbatical, House Democrats could not contribute anything serious. Yet they did find the time to keep fishing for another impeachment. More than a year after the Mueller report thoroughly debunked the collusion conspiracy theory, Democrats are still pursuing the administration in court over that document. In a new Supreme Court brief the day before yesterday, House Democrats said they have the right to continue because--listen to this--the President's impeachment did not actually end with his acquittal. The House Democrats are now claiming the impeachment that ended in February is not really over. Their brief says they are weighing ``whether to recommend new articles of impeachment.'' And referring to Chairman Nadler's Judiciary Committee, ``the Committee's investigation did not cease with the conclusion of the impeachment trial.'' That is Chairman Nadler's argument in a court case. Perpetual investigation and perpetual impeachment--if only someone could have predicted this. If only anyone had warned that House Democrats' opening the Pandora's box of weak impeachments would affect our country into the future. Of course, Senate and House Republicans warned precisely that, and here we are. It is a suitable complement to the other ongoing incident, where a Federal judge has taken it upon himself to prolong a case that the actual prosecutors want to drop. These are fascinating legal standards. Investigations no longer end when a jury acquits someone and prosecutions no longer end when charges are dropped. The House Democrats would rather spend a fourth consecutive year trying to cram their politics into the legal system than actually govern the country during a pandemic Fortunately, as I laid out, the Senate is up to the job. Every single day, the historic CARES Act that we wrote and passed to fight this pandemic continues to come online. Direct payments hit families' accounts. Support for major industries helps to prevent mass layoffs. Resources for doctors, nurses, hospitals, and healthcare providers help to stabilize the system from coast to coast. The Paycheck Protection Program has saved tens of millions of jobs for American workers. From big cities to small towns, to industrial suburbs, to farm country, Senate Republicans' bold program is turning potential pink slips into paychecks every single day. To be sure, the program is imperfect. That was guaranteed when banks had to cram multiple years' worth of lending into a few weeks. Yesterday, we saw a glaring example of that imperfection. The legislation we passed contains specific eligibility requirements. One rule said affiliates of national nonprofits could not pose as small nonprofits and ask for money. But because time was and is of the essence, the legislation set up a process of initial self-certification with review to follow, rather than lengthy vetting upfront that would have slowed the emergency money for rightful recipients. We learned yesterday that the Nation's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, abused this emergency process and grabbed tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money for which they were completely ineligible. This is the organization that fired its new president last year because she was too focused on broader health issues and not sufficiently fixated on abortion above all else. Disrespecting human life is their central mission, and they just took advantage of a national crisis and helped themselves to tens of millions of taxpayer dollars they were clearly forbidden from taking. It goes without saying that the money must be sent back immediately--right now. As we shine a light on Planned Parenthood's misrepresentations, we cannot let their actions jeopardize this important program with the tens of millions of Americans who are benefiting from it rightly. Remember, the PPP has pushed $500 billion into the economy across more than 4 million loans. The average loan size is just $118,000, giving paychecks instead of pink slips for tens of millions of Americans. My hometown of Louisville, KY, is home to the baseball bat factory that makes the world-famous Louisville Slugger. For a few months, the bat factory was a temporary casualty of COVID-19. This month, the manufacturer secured a PPP loan, and 171 employees were pulled off furlough and put right back on the payroll. So 171 family stories went from pain and chaos back to stability because of this program. That is just one business in one city in one State. There is also an automotive parts supplier and a hoagie shop in Michigan, a fresh flower shop in Arizona, a burger joint and a community nonprofit in North Carolina, and on and on and on. Four million loans across all 50 States and new loans are still being issued as we speak. This is what serious legislation looks like. This is what serious solutions can accomplish. Every day, the Senate's work is paying dividends to working families all across our country. The pandemic is not all we are working on. The Senate is also staying on top of foreign relations, national security, and the personnel business. Yesterday, the Intelligence Committee reported out the nomination of the next Director of the National Intelligence. The Armed Services Committee reported out nominations for Secretary of the Navy, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. I hope our Democratic colleagues will not block the Senate from filling these key national security vacancies before we adjourn later this week.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. McCONNELL
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2511-8
| null | 666
|
formal
|
working families
| null |
racist
|
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, week after week, this Capitol has been a study in contrasts. Call it the tale of two Chambers. Over here in the Senate, the lights are on, the doors are open, and we are working for the American people. All month, we have been in session, passing national security legislation, confirming key nominees, and holding hearings on the coronavirus crisis and the effectiveness of the historic rescue package the Senate wrote and the Senate passed. We are heeding medical guidance and taking new precautions, but we are showing up and getting things done. Over across the Rotunda, in the House, crickets--their lights are off. The doors are locked. The people's House has shown up for a grand total of 2 legislative session days since March. Well, 2 days in 8 weeks is a blistering pace. Last week, they flew into town to pass Speaker Pelosi's latest 1,800-page liberal wish list. Diversity and inclusion in the marijuana industry wasn't going to study itself, after all. That had to be an A-1 priority during this crisis. The Speaker's proposal was so unserious and so far left that it could not even unite her own conference. Even after a 2-month sabbatical, House Democrats could not contribute anything serious. Yet they did find the time to keep fishing for another impeachment. More than a year after the Mueller report thoroughly debunked the collusion conspiracy theory, Democrats are still pursuing the administration in court over that document. In a new Supreme Court brief the day before yesterday, House Democrats said they have the right to continue because--listen to this--the President's impeachment did not actually end with his acquittal. The House Democrats are now claiming the impeachment that ended in February is not really over. Their brief says they are weighing ``whether to recommend new articles of impeachment.'' And referring to Chairman Nadler's Judiciary Committee, ``the Committee's investigation did not cease with the conclusion of the impeachment trial.'' That is Chairman Nadler's argument in a court case. Perpetual investigation and perpetual impeachment--if only someone could have predicted this. If only anyone had warned that House Democrats' opening the Pandora's box of weak impeachments would affect our country into the future. Of course, Senate and House Republicans warned precisely that, and here we are. It is a suitable complement to the other ongoing incident, where a Federal judge has taken it upon himself to prolong a case that the actual prosecutors want to drop. These are fascinating legal standards. Investigations no longer end when a jury acquits someone and prosecutions no longer end when charges are dropped. The House Democrats would rather spend a fourth consecutive year trying to cram their politics into the legal system than actually govern the country during a pandemic Fortunately, as I laid out, the Senate is up to the job. Every single day, the historic CARES Act that we wrote and passed to fight this pandemic continues to come online. Direct payments hit families' accounts. Support for major industries helps to prevent mass layoffs. Resources for doctors, nurses, hospitals, and healthcare providers help to stabilize the system from coast to coast. The Paycheck Protection Program has saved tens of millions of jobs for American workers. From big cities to small towns, to industrial suburbs, to farm country, Senate Republicans' bold program is turning potential pink slips into paychecks every single day. To be sure, the program is imperfect. That was guaranteed when banks had to cram multiple years' worth of lending into a few weeks. Yesterday, we saw a glaring example of that imperfection. The legislation we passed contains specific eligibility requirements. One rule said affiliates of national nonprofits could not pose as small nonprofits and ask for money. But because time was and is of the essence, the legislation set up a process of initial self-certification with review to follow, rather than lengthy vetting upfront that would have slowed the emergency money for rightful recipients. We learned yesterday that the Nation's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, abused this emergency process and grabbed tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money for which they were completely ineligible. This is the organization that fired its new president last year because she was too focused on broader health issues and not sufficiently fixated on abortion above all else. Disrespecting human life is their central mission, and they just took advantage of a national crisis and helped themselves to tens of millions of taxpayer dollars they were clearly forbidden from taking. It goes without saying that the money must be sent back immediately--right now. As we shine a light on Planned Parenthood's misrepresentations, we cannot let their actions jeopardize this important program with the tens of millions of Americans who are benefiting from it rightly. Remember, the PPP has pushed $500 billion into the economy across more than 4 million loans. The average loan size is just $118,000, giving paychecks instead of pink slips for tens of millions of Americans. My hometown of Louisville, KY, is home to the baseball bat factory that makes the world-famous Louisville Slugger. For a few months, the bat factory was a temporary casualty of COVID-19. This month, the manufacturer secured a PPP loan, and 171 employees were pulled off furlough and put right back on the payroll. So 171 family stories went from pain and chaos back to stability because of this program. That is just one business in one city in one State. There is also an automotive parts supplier and a hoagie shop in Michigan, a fresh flower shop in Arizona, a burger joint and a community nonprofit in North Carolina, and on and on and on. Four million loans across all 50 States and new loans are still being issued as we speak. This is what serious legislation looks like. This is what serious solutions can accomplish. Every day, the Senate's work is paying dividends to working families all across our country. The pandemic is not all we are working on. The Senate is also staying on top of foreign relations, national security, and the personnel business. Yesterday, the Intelligence Committee reported out the nomination of the next Director of the National Intelligence. The Armed Services Committee reported out nominations for Secretary of the Navy, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. I hope our Democratic colleagues will not block the Senate from filling these key national security vacancies before we adjourn later this week.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. McCONNELL
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2511-8
| null | 667
|
formal
|
tax cut
| null |
racist
|
Coronavirus Madam President, before we vote here in just a few minutes, I want to just make a couple of remarks with respect to coronavirus legislation. We have heard some of our colleagues on the Democrat side come down here and attack Republicans for not wanting to do more legislation and more spending, which is, as they know, completely not accurate. Republicans are prepared to do whatever it takes to help America recover from the coronavirus effects and to deal with the health emergency, which is why we have invested tens of billions of dollars in vaccines and antiviral therapeutics and testing--all the things that are necessary to get this healthcare crisis dealt with in a way that would allow Americans the confidence to get back out in the economy. Secondly, dealing with the economic impacts, which have been many, the bills that we passed so far--we passed four--and the combined amount of the spending in those four bills are almost $3 trillion. It is focused on families, getting direct assistance into the hands of American families. It is focused on workers, keeping workers employed. This Paycheck Protection Program has clearly been one that has allowed a lot of small businesses to continue to operate and to continue to keep their workers employed. It is focused on those who, through no fault of their own, have lost jobs, with a significant plus-up in unemployment insurance accounts, supported at the State level but significantly increased in terms of funding from the Federal Government. Of course, as I said earlier, it is focused very directly on those healthcare professionals or healthcare workers on the frontlines, to make sure that they have PPE and ventilators, all the things not only to protect themselves but to care for the patients whom they are entrusted to care for. As I said before, investing heavily in those things will help us fight and win and beat the coronavirus--the vaccines, the antiviral therapeutics, and the testing. Those are all things that we have done already. Now, what you saw last week was the House of Representatives blow into town for a 24-hour period to pass a massive $3 trillion bill filled up with all kinds of goodies in a gift bag for special interest groups that they care about but that have little to do with addressing the fundamental challenges facing this country with respect to the coronavirus. I would argue that not only do they not know what the need is but that many of the dollars we have already pushed out are still in the pipeline and haven't been used. We don't know what our State and local governments need in terms of revenue replacement, and we have lots of dollars that are still going out to hospitals, healthcare providers, and nursing homes, much of which hasn't been spent yet. Of course we have the Paycheck Protection Program, which we are burning through fairly quickly but hasn't run out of funding yet either. As I said, those are all the things--the almost $3 trillion--that have been disbursed and distributed already to address this crisis. What Democrats did last week in the House of Representatives is that they came in with a philosophical, ideological wish list--a fantasy, if you will--of all of the things they would like to get done, very few of which actually deal with the crisis at hand, so much so that their bill--1,800 pages long, $3 trillion in new spending, again, without knowing what the effect is of dollars already spent or what the need is out there for additional spending--included things like funding for studies on diversity and inclusion in the marketing of cannabis. Is that really something that is relevant to fighting and battling the coronavirus? They included in there tax increases for small businesses. The one tax cut they included in their bill dramatically cuts taxes for millionaires and billionaires. In fact, 56 percent of that tax cut would go to the top 1 percent of wage earners in this country. Those are the types of things that were included in that bill. It really was an ideological wish list--nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else. So for Democratic leaders to come down here and suggest for a minute that what the House did somehow ought to be something that the Senate contemplates or considers doing here is just completely missing the point of what the American people need in this crisis, and that is certainty. They need to know that we are dealing with the health emergency. They need to know that there is going to be support there for our small businesses, for our workers, for people who are unemployed, and for our families. They need to know that we are committed to seeing that we have the vaccines in place, the therapeutics in place that will enable us to fight and win this battle against the coronavirus. That is what we ought to be focused on, not this crazy wish list of things that the House, in a short amount of time--24 hours--came in here to vote on and, as I said earlier, much of which was focused on an agenda--a more permanent agenda--rather than the task at hand, which is addressing the crisis in front of us. I hope my Democratic colleagues will work with us in a constructive way and in a bipartisan way to deal with the very real challenges that are being faced by the American people and not continue to come down here and advocate for an ideological wish list that, one, can't become law, and two, doesn't deal with the task at hand. I yield the floor.
|
2020-01-06
|
Unknown
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2518
| null | 668
|
formal
|
the Fed
| null |
antisemitic
|
Coronavirus Madam President, before we vote here in just a few minutes, I want to just make a couple of remarks with respect to coronavirus legislation. We have heard some of our colleagues on the Democrat side come down here and attack Republicans for not wanting to do more legislation and more spending, which is, as they know, completely not accurate. Republicans are prepared to do whatever it takes to help America recover from the coronavirus effects and to deal with the health emergency, which is why we have invested tens of billions of dollars in vaccines and antiviral therapeutics and testing--all the things that are necessary to get this healthcare crisis dealt with in a way that would allow Americans the confidence to get back out in the economy. Secondly, dealing with the economic impacts, which have been many, the bills that we passed so far--we passed four--and the combined amount of the spending in those four bills are almost $3 trillion. It is focused on families, getting direct assistance into the hands of American families. It is focused on workers, keeping workers employed. This Paycheck Protection Program has clearly been one that has allowed a lot of small businesses to continue to operate and to continue to keep their workers employed. It is focused on those who, through no fault of their own, have lost jobs, with a significant plus-up in unemployment insurance accounts, supported at the State level but significantly increased in terms of funding from the Federal Government. Of course, as I said earlier, it is focused very directly on those healthcare professionals or healthcare workers on the frontlines, to make sure that they have PPE and ventilators, all the things not only to protect themselves but to care for the patients whom they are entrusted to care for. As I said before, investing heavily in those things will help us fight and win and beat the coronavirus--the vaccines, the antiviral therapeutics, and the testing. Those are all things that we have done already. Now, what you saw last week was the House of Representatives blow into town for a 24-hour period to pass a massive $3 trillion bill filled up with all kinds of goodies in a gift bag for special interest groups that they care about but that have little to do with addressing the fundamental challenges facing this country with respect to the coronavirus. I would argue that not only do they not know what the need is but that many of the dollars we have already pushed out are still in the pipeline and haven't been used. We don't know what our State and local governments need in terms of revenue replacement, and we have lots of dollars that are still going out to hospitals, healthcare providers, and nursing homes, much of which hasn't been spent yet. Of course we have the Paycheck Protection Program, which we are burning through fairly quickly but hasn't run out of funding yet either. As I said, those are all the things--the almost $3 trillion--that have been disbursed and distributed already to address this crisis. What Democrats did last week in the House of Representatives is that they came in with a philosophical, ideological wish list--a fantasy, if you will--of all of the things they would like to get done, very few of which actually deal with the crisis at hand, so much so that their bill--1,800 pages long, $3 trillion in new spending, again, without knowing what the effect is of dollars already spent or what the need is out there for additional spending--included things like funding for studies on diversity and inclusion in the marketing of cannabis. Is that really something that is relevant to fighting and battling the coronavirus? They included in there tax increases for small businesses. The one tax cut they included in their bill dramatically cuts taxes for millionaires and billionaires. In fact, 56 percent of that tax cut would go to the top 1 percent of wage earners in this country. Those are the types of things that were included in that bill. It really was an ideological wish list--nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else. So for Democratic leaders to come down here and suggest for a minute that what the House did somehow ought to be something that the Senate contemplates or considers doing here is just completely missing the point of what the American people need in this crisis, and that is certainty. They need to know that we are dealing with the health emergency. They need to know that there is going to be support there for our small businesses, for our workers, for people who are unemployed, and for our families. They need to know that we are committed to seeing that we have the vaccines in place, the therapeutics in place that will enable us to fight and win this battle against the coronavirus. That is what we ought to be focused on, not this crazy wish list of things that the House, in a short amount of time--24 hours--came in here to vote on and, as I said earlier, much of which was focused on an agenda--a more permanent agenda--rather than the task at hand, which is addressing the crisis in front of us. I hope my Democratic colleagues will work with us in a constructive way and in a bipartisan way to deal with the very real challenges that are being faced by the American people and not continue to come down here and advocate for an ideological wish list that, one, can't become law, and two, doesn't deal with the task at hand. I yield the floor.
|
2020-01-06
|
Unknown
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2518
| null | 669
|
formal
|
special interest
| null |
antisemitic
|
Coronavirus Madam President, before we vote here in just a few minutes, I want to just make a couple of remarks with respect to coronavirus legislation. We have heard some of our colleagues on the Democrat side come down here and attack Republicans for not wanting to do more legislation and more spending, which is, as they know, completely not accurate. Republicans are prepared to do whatever it takes to help America recover from the coronavirus effects and to deal with the health emergency, which is why we have invested tens of billions of dollars in vaccines and antiviral therapeutics and testing--all the things that are necessary to get this healthcare crisis dealt with in a way that would allow Americans the confidence to get back out in the economy. Secondly, dealing with the economic impacts, which have been many, the bills that we passed so far--we passed four--and the combined amount of the spending in those four bills are almost $3 trillion. It is focused on families, getting direct assistance into the hands of American families. It is focused on workers, keeping workers employed. This Paycheck Protection Program has clearly been one that has allowed a lot of small businesses to continue to operate and to continue to keep their workers employed. It is focused on those who, through no fault of their own, have lost jobs, with a significant plus-up in unemployment insurance accounts, supported at the State level but significantly increased in terms of funding from the Federal Government. Of course, as I said earlier, it is focused very directly on those healthcare professionals or healthcare workers on the frontlines, to make sure that they have PPE and ventilators, all the things not only to protect themselves but to care for the patients whom they are entrusted to care for. As I said before, investing heavily in those things will help us fight and win and beat the coronavirus--the vaccines, the antiviral therapeutics, and the testing. Those are all things that we have done already. Now, what you saw last week was the House of Representatives blow into town for a 24-hour period to pass a massive $3 trillion bill filled up with all kinds of goodies in a gift bag for special interest groups that they care about but that have little to do with addressing the fundamental challenges facing this country with respect to the coronavirus. I would argue that not only do they not know what the need is but that many of the dollars we have already pushed out are still in the pipeline and haven't been used. We don't know what our State and local governments need in terms of revenue replacement, and we have lots of dollars that are still going out to hospitals, healthcare providers, and nursing homes, much of which hasn't been spent yet. Of course we have the Paycheck Protection Program, which we are burning through fairly quickly but hasn't run out of funding yet either. As I said, those are all the things--the almost $3 trillion--that have been disbursed and distributed already to address this crisis. What Democrats did last week in the House of Representatives is that they came in with a philosophical, ideological wish list--a fantasy, if you will--of all of the things they would like to get done, very few of which actually deal with the crisis at hand, so much so that their bill--1,800 pages long, $3 trillion in new spending, again, without knowing what the effect is of dollars already spent or what the need is out there for additional spending--included things like funding for studies on diversity and inclusion in the marketing of cannabis. Is that really something that is relevant to fighting and battling the coronavirus? They included in there tax increases for small businesses. The one tax cut they included in their bill dramatically cuts taxes for millionaires and billionaires. In fact, 56 percent of that tax cut would go to the top 1 percent of wage earners in this country. Those are the types of things that were included in that bill. It really was an ideological wish list--nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else. So for Democratic leaders to come down here and suggest for a minute that what the House did somehow ought to be something that the Senate contemplates or considers doing here is just completely missing the point of what the American people need in this crisis, and that is certainty. They need to know that we are dealing with the health emergency. They need to know that there is going to be support there for our small businesses, for our workers, for people who are unemployed, and for our families. They need to know that we are committed to seeing that we have the vaccines in place, the therapeutics in place that will enable us to fight and win this battle against the coronavirus. That is what we ought to be focused on, not this crazy wish list of things that the House, in a short amount of time--24 hours--came in here to vote on and, as I said earlier, much of which was focused on an agenda--a more permanent agenda--rather than the task at hand, which is addressing the crisis in front of us. I hope my Democratic colleagues will work with us in a constructive way and in a bipartisan way to deal with the very real challenges that are being faced by the American people and not continue to come down here and advocate for an ideological wish list that, one, can't become law, and two, doesn't deal with the task at hand. I yield the floor.
|
2020-01-06
|
Unknown
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2518
| null | 670
|
formal
|
every single time
| null |
white supremacist
|
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to talk for a few minutes about China. China, as you know, is a wonderful country. It has about 1.4, 1.5 billion people. A lot of times, you see reported that there are only 1.2 billion, but they are a lot bigger than that. America only has about 320, 330 million folks. By land size, it is about the same size as the United States. A lot of people think they are the biggest country by land in the world, but actually Russia is. Canada is No. 2, and China is probably No. 3 by land size, but we are both close. I love visiting China. The few times I have been there, the people of China were just wonderful people--very interesting, very smart, very hard-working, very aspirational. I say this because when I talk today about China, I want you and my colleagues in the Senate to understand that I am not talking about the people of China. The people of China are good people; the Chinese Communist Party, not so much. I really regret having to say this. I would not turn my back on the Chinese Communist Party if they were 2 days dead. I don't want to have a Cold War with China. I would rather see us work together for the common good of the planet Earth, and we have tried, but that hasn't worked out real well. We admitted China to the World Trade Organization on December 11, 2001. It wasn't just our decision, but you know better than I do that China wouldn't have been admitted to the WTO without our support. So we agreed--December 11, 2001. China started cheating December 12. They steal our intellectual property--not just ours but everyone else's in the world. They steal the world's intellectual property. They substantially subsidize their state-owned companies, so other companies throughout the world that don't get state subsidies can't compete with them. For years, they manipulated their currency. They are trying to control the sea lanes of the world. They started in the South China Sea. They are seizing islands that don't belong to them. The next step is, they will try to militarize space. They have used their economic power as a weapon. Our friends and allies in Australia have asked some very reasonable questions about the origins of the coronavirus and the COVID-19. China has responded by saying: We refuse to buy any more of your products. Those are just the facts. Now, the managerial elites told us--by that, I mean a lot of the entrenched politicians, the deep thinkers of the world, the academics, many members of the media, the bureaucrats, a lot of the corporate phonies, the ones who think they are smarter, more virtuous than the rest of us in America. They told us: Oh, you are wrong about China. Be patient with China. Be patient with them. Free enterprise will change China. China has changed free enterprise, and China is on a glidepath to dominance. And do you know what the Congress has done about it? Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Let me say it again. I love the people of China. I am talking about the Chinese Communist Party. And I do not--I do not want to get into a new Cold War. All I want and I think all the rest of us want is for China to play by the rules. Let me give an example. Every company in the world that goes public would like to list on U.S. stock exchanges--the over-the-counter market, the S&P, the New York Stock Exchange. We are very efficient. We are excruciatingly transparent. We like investors throughout the world to know what they are buying. We require companies to disclose. And I think our SEC does an extraordinarily able job. I think Chairman Jay Clayton has just been a rock star. We have a rule that if you list on our exchanges, you have to file periodic reports. Once again, we want investors to understand what they are investing in. And those reports have to be accurate, or you get in a lot of trouble. One of the things, for example, in one of these reports that companies have to file is an annual audit, but we take it a step further in the United States. There is a Board within the SEC called the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, PCAOB. Really, all that Board does--I say ``all''; it is important--that Board inspects the audits that the companies file, not because they think the companies are cheating, although some do. But it is like when we play poker with friends. I play poker with friends. They are my friends, but I cut the cards every single time. And that is what our SEC does through this Board. They say: We are going to double check your audits. Everybody has to comply with that rule--American companies, British companies, Malaysian companies, Turkmenistan companies--except one: Chinese companies. They just say: No. They just say: No, we are not going to do it. And you know what we do about it? Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. This is not a 2- or 3-month phenomenon. This has gone on for years and years and years, and all of us in the executive branch and, yes, in Congress, we huff and we puff and we strut around and we hold hearings and we issue press releases, and then we do nothing. And where I come from, what you allow is what will continue. I have a bill. It is very simple. It says to all the companies out there in the world, including but not limited to China: If you want to list on an American exchange, you have to submit an audit. SEC has the right to look at that audit and audit the audit, and if you refuse not once, not twice, but three times--if over a 3-year period, each of those 3 years, the company says ``You cannot audit my audit,'' then they can no longer be listed on the American exchanges. It is very, very simple. Once again, I tried to be very fair in this bill, as did my coauthor, Senator Chris Van Hollen. We spent a lot of time on this. We don't want to be unfair to Chinese companies. We are not changing the rules; they have just been ignoring the rules. We are saying: Look, we are not going to give you just one chance; we are going to give you three chances. If a Chinese company or any other company ignores the SEC request, what they can do to all the other companies in the world--that is, audit their audits--if you ignore the SEC for 3 years, then you have to take your business somewhere else. Do you know whom that is going to help the most? The investors of America and the investors of the world. Most of the companies that are public companies I believe tell the truth, but some of them don't, and this is hard-earned money that people are investing. The name of our bill--Senator Chris Van Hollen is the coauthor--is the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act, and, as I just explained, it is very simple. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 945 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. KENNEDY
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2519
| null | 671
|
formal
|
single
| null |
homophobic
|
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to talk for a few minutes about China. China, as you know, is a wonderful country. It has about 1.4, 1.5 billion people. A lot of times, you see reported that there are only 1.2 billion, but they are a lot bigger than that. America only has about 320, 330 million folks. By land size, it is about the same size as the United States. A lot of people think they are the biggest country by land in the world, but actually Russia is. Canada is No. 2, and China is probably No. 3 by land size, but we are both close. I love visiting China. The few times I have been there, the people of China were just wonderful people--very interesting, very smart, very hard-working, very aspirational. I say this because when I talk today about China, I want you and my colleagues in the Senate to understand that I am not talking about the people of China. The people of China are good people; the Chinese Communist Party, not so much. I really regret having to say this. I would not turn my back on the Chinese Communist Party if they were 2 days dead. I don't want to have a Cold War with China. I would rather see us work together for the common good of the planet Earth, and we have tried, but that hasn't worked out real well. We admitted China to the World Trade Organization on December 11, 2001. It wasn't just our decision, but you know better than I do that China wouldn't have been admitted to the WTO without our support. So we agreed--December 11, 2001. China started cheating December 12. They steal our intellectual property--not just ours but everyone else's in the world. They steal the world's intellectual property. They substantially subsidize their state-owned companies, so other companies throughout the world that don't get state subsidies can't compete with them. For years, they manipulated their currency. They are trying to control the sea lanes of the world. They started in the South China Sea. They are seizing islands that don't belong to them. The next step is, they will try to militarize space. They have used their economic power as a weapon. Our friends and allies in Australia have asked some very reasonable questions about the origins of the coronavirus and the COVID-19. China has responded by saying: We refuse to buy any more of your products. Those are just the facts. Now, the managerial elites told us--by that, I mean a lot of the entrenched politicians, the deep thinkers of the world, the academics, many members of the media, the bureaucrats, a lot of the corporate phonies, the ones who think they are smarter, more virtuous than the rest of us in America. They told us: Oh, you are wrong about China. Be patient with China. Be patient with them. Free enterprise will change China. China has changed free enterprise, and China is on a glidepath to dominance. And do you know what the Congress has done about it? Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Let me say it again. I love the people of China. I am talking about the Chinese Communist Party. And I do not--I do not want to get into a new Cold War. All I want and I think all the rest of us want is for China to play by the rules. Let me give an example. Every company in the world that goes public would like to list on U.S. stock exchanges--the over-the-counter market, the S&P, the New York Stock Exchange. We are very efficient. We are excruciatingly transparent. We like investors throughout the world to know what they are buying. We require companies to disclose. And I think our SEC does an extraordinarily able job. I think Chairman Jay Clayton has just been a rock star. We have a rule that if you list on our exchanges, you have to file periodic reports. Once again, we want investors to understand what they are investing in. And those reports have to be accurate, or you get in a lot of trouble. One of the things, for example, in one of these reports that companies have to file is an annual audit, but we take it a step further in the United States. There is a Board within the SEC called the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, PCAOB. Really, all that Board does--I say ``all''; it is important--that Board inspects the audits that the companies file, not because they think the companies are cheating, although some do. But it is like when we play poker with friends. I play poker with friends. They are my friends, but I cut the cards every single time. And that is what our SEC does through this Board. They say: We are going to double check your audits. Everybody has to comply with that rule--American companies, British companies, Malaysian companies, Turkmenistan companies--except one: Chinese companies. They just say: No. They just say: No, we are not going to do it. And you know what we do about it? Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. This is not a 2- or 3-month phenomenon. This has gone on for years and years and years, and all of us in the executive branch and, yes, in Congress, we huff and we puff and we strut around and we hold hearings and we issue press releases, and then we do nothing. And where I come from, what you allow is what will continue. I have a bill. It is very simple. It says to all the companies out there in the world, including but not limited to China: If you want to list on an American exchange, you have to submit an audit. SEC has the right to look at that audit and audit the audit, and if you refuse not once, not twice, but three times--if over a 3-year period, each of those 3 years, the company says ``You cannot audit my audit,'' then they can no longer be listed on the American exchanges. It is very, very simple. Once again, I tried to be very fair in this bill, as did my coauthor, Senator Chris Van Hollen. We spent a lot of time on this. We don't want to be unfair to Chinese companies. We are not changing the rules; they have just been ignoring the rules. We are saying: Look, we are not going to give you just one chance; we are going to give you three chances. If a Chinese company or any other company ignores the SEC request, what they can do to all the other companies in the world--that is, audit their audits--if you ignore the SEC for 3 years, then you have to take your business somewhere else. Do you know whom that is going to help the most? The investors of America and the investors of the world. Most of the companies that are public companies I believe tell the truth, but some of them don't, and this is hard-earned money that people are investing. The name of our bill--Senator Chris Van Hollen is the coauthor--is the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act, and, as I just explained, it is very simple. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 945 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. KENNEDY
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2519
| null | 672
|
formal
|
you know who
| null |
antisemitic
|
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to talk for a few minutes about China. China, as you know, is a wonderful country. It has about 1.4, 1.5 billion people. A lot of times, you see reported that there are only 1.2 billion, but they are a lot bigger than that. America only has about 320, 330 million folks. By land size, it is about the same size as the United States. A lot of people think they are the biggest country by land in the world, but actually Russia is. Canada is No. 2, and China is probably No. 3 by land size, but we are both close. I love visiting China. The few times I have been there, the people of China were just wonderful people--very interesting, very smart, very hard-working, very aspirational. I say this because when I talk today about China, I want you and my colleagues in the Senate to understand that I am not talking about the people of China. The people of China are good people; the Chinese Communist Party, not so much. I really regret having to say this. I would not turn my back on the Chinese Communist Party if they were 2 days dead. I don't want to have a Cold War with China. I would rather see us work together for the common good of the planet Earth, and we have tried, but that hasn't worked out real well. We admitted China to the World Trade Organization on December 11, 2001. It wasn't just our decision, but you know better than I do that China wouldn't have been admitted to the WTO without our support. So we agreed--December 11, 2001. China started cheating December 12. They steal our intellectual property--not just ours but everyone else's in the world. They steal the world's intellectual property. They substantially subsidize their state-owned companies, so other companies throughout the world that don't get state subsidies can't compete with them. For years, they manipulated their currency. They are trying to control the sea lanes of the world. They started in the South China Sea. They are seizing islands that don't belong to them. The next step is, they will try to militarize space. They have used their economic power as a weapon. Our friends and allies in Australia have asked some very reasonable questions about the origins of the coronavirus and the COVID-19. China has responded by saying: We refuse to buy any more of your products. Those are just the facts. Now, the managerial elites told us--by that, I mean a lot of the entrenched politicians, the deep thinkers of the world, the academics, many members of the media, the bureaucrats, a lot of the corporate phonies, the ones who think they are smarter, more virtuous than the rest of us in America. They told us: Oh, you are wrong about China. Be patient with China. Be patient with them. Free enterprise will change China. China has changed free enterprise, and China is on a glidepath to dominance. And do you know what the Congress has done about it? Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Let me say it again. I love the people of China. I am talking about the Chinese Communist Party. And I do not--I do not want to get into a new Cold War. All I want and I think all the rest of us want is for China to play by the rules. Let me give an example. Every company in the world that goes public would like to list on U.S. stock exchanges--the over-the-counter market, the S&P, the New York Stock Exchange. We are very efficient. We are excruciatingly transparent. We like investors throughout the world to know what they are buying. We require companies to disclose. And I think our SEC does an extraordinarily able job. I think Chairman Jay Clayton has just been a rock star. We have a rule that if you list on our exchanges, you have to file periodic reports. Once again, we want investors to understand what they are investing in. And those reports have to be accurate, or you get in a lot of trouble. One of the things, for example, in one of these reports that companies have to file is an annual audit, but we take it a step further in the United States. There is a Board within the SEC called the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, PCAOB. Really, all that Board does--I say ``all''; it is important--that Board inspects the audits that the companies file, not because they think the companies are cheating, although some do. But it is like when we play poker with friends. I play poker with friends. They are my friends, but I cut the cards every single time. And that is what our SEC does through this Board. They say: We are going to double check your audits. Everybody has to comply with that rule--American companies, British companies, Malaysian companies, Turkmenistan companies--except one: Chinese companies. They just say: No. They just say: No, we are not going to do it. And you know what we do about it? Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. This is not a 2- or 3-month phenomenon. This has gone on for years and years and years, and all of us in the executive branch and, yes, in Congress, we huff and we puff and we strut around and we hold hearings and we issue press releases, and then we do nothing. And where I come from, what you allow is what will continue. I have a bill. It is very simple. It says to all the companies out there in the world, including but not limited to China: If you want to list on an American exchange, you have to submit an audit. SEC has the right to look at that audit and audit the audit, and if you refuse not once, not twice, but three times--if over a 3-year period, each of those 3 years, the company says ``You cannot audit my audit,'' then they can no longer be listed on the American exchanges. It is very, very simple. Once again, I tried to be very fair in this bill, as did my coauthor, Senator Chris Van Hollen. We spent a lot of time on this. We don't want to be unfair to Chinese companies. We are not changing the rules; they have just been ignoring the rules. We are saying: Look, we are not going to give you just one chance; we are going to give you three chances. If a Chinese company or any other company ignores the SEC request, what they can do to all the other companies in the world--that is, audit their audits--if you ignore the SEC for 3 years, then you have to take your business somewhere else. Do you know whom that is going to help the most? The investors of America and the investors of the world. Most of the companies that are public companies I believe tell the truth, but some of them don't, and this is hard-earned money that people are investing. The name of our bill--Senator Chris Van Hollen is the coauthor--is the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act, and, as I just explained, it is very simple. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 945 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. KENNEDY
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2519
| null | 673
|
formal
|
take back
| null |
white supremacist
|
HEROES Act Madam President, at the beginning of March, we worked to get ahead of the COVID pandemic, and an amazing thing happened. Congress came together quickly and developed a broad package of measures to provide relief to families, workers, and businesses to weather the COVID-19 event and the crisis that it is. Coronavirus aid, relief, and economic security--those words make up the CARES Act--included a broad range of tools: first, direct payments to individuals and families; second, it expanded unemployment insurance benefits for the unemployed; third, lending programs for businesses of all sizes; and fourth, targeted tax relief to help businesses continue operations and keep workers on the payroll. Our objective for the tax provisions in the CARES Act was twofold: first, to help individuals, families, and businesses weather the storm caused by the stay-at-home governmental decisions, and second, lay as much of a foundation as possible for restarting the economy once businesses could start to reopen and Americans could get back to work. The CARES Act came together through a bipartisan process, and that process took place over 8 short days and ultimately and amazingly passed the Senate 96 to 0 on March 25. The House passed it by a voice vote 2 days later, and President Trump signed it into law that same day. As chairman of the Finance Committee, my approach for tax relief was to provide as much liquidity as possible and as quickly as possible. For individuals, that meant providing the Treasury Department with authority to issue nearly $300 billion in economic impact payments to families across the Nation. This economic impact payment was $1,200 for an individual, $2,400 for a couple, and $500 for each child. That went out in checks or direct deposit. It also meant giving individuals access to cash in retirement accounts, suspending required distributions from retirement accounts already hit by steep declines in the stock market, and giving employers more flexibility to help employees with student loan payments. Many of these tools are similar to ones made available to help families recover from natural disasters in recent years. So we were not reinventing policy for this pandemic; we were making use of things we had already tried before. Each of these changes I just mentioned is a tool that can be implemented very quickly to help families access the care they need to get through these difficult times. Going through the business tax relief measures, our approach was to modify existing provisions of the Tax Code, easing limits and restrictions so that businesses could apply for this help easily and quickly. The key was for businesses to keep cash on hand if they hadn't already filed or give refunds to give them the liquidity to keep the doors open, the machinery running, and most importantly, employees paid, at least to the greatest extent possible. Most of these tax measures have been employed in previous economic crises and natural disasters. Again, these policies were not reinventing the wheel; we were taking advantage of things that had worked in the past. Particularly, we expanded the ability of businesses to use net operating losses--or, as we call them in tax jargon, NOLs--just like Congress did in 2002 after 9/11, in 2005 for taxpayers affected by Hurricane Katrina, and again in 2009 after the financial crisis. Those were actually bipartisan relief efforts just like the CARES Act. These provisions are temporary. They are designed to terminate after the recovery is in full force. While it seems longer, you have to remember the CARES Act was enacted just over 7 weeks ago. In that time, Treasury has distributed economic impact payments far faster than expected. Americans have received approximately 140 million economic impact payments worth $249 billion. Over 4.3 million small businesses have been approved for more than $500 billion of loans under the Paycheck Protection Program and businesses of all sizes have started to use the tax tools that we provided for their liquidity. But in that time, the critics have also done what they do best: They criticize. The media has seized on an opportunity to perpetuate every negative story that critics can manufacture. You can imagine my surprise when Democrats criticized the net operating loss carryback provisions in the CARES Act. Oddly, Democrats previously supported the last three bills, where we expanded the net operating loss carrybacks in 2002, 2005, and even in 2009--in the last instance, with all-Democratic rule. I don't recall, in any of those instances, any partisan attacks from Democrats about this previously bipartisan, anti-recessionary policy tools. So why now? Sadly, that irresponsibility has led our Democratic colleagues in the House to pass legislation that would take back important tax tools that we have provided in the CARES Act to the tune of $254 billion, and that is a tax increase on the American businesses, and with more taxes, less employees. It is hard to understand how the House Democrats think that this policy makes any sense. Imposing tax increases when you have a downturn--imposing a quarter of a trillion dollar retroactive tax increase on businesses in need of cash to restart their operations as States begin to lift shutdown orders--is a recipe for further disaster, as opposed to the disaster we are already in. It makes one think that House Democrats don't want an economic recovery, at least until they can defeat President Trump. Imposing such a tax increase when the country is facing unemployment levels not seen since the Great Depression fails the common sense test. It is even more disturbing to the extent that the House Democrats' proposal targets small businesses and other pass-through entities. Aren't these losses just as real as larger corporations and their need for liquidity possibly even greater? According to the Tax Foundation, more than 90 percent of American businesses in recent years operate as pass-through entities. Pass-through businesses include some of those hardest hit by this pandemic we are in, like farmers, restaurants, manufacturers, retailers, and healthcare providers. They employ over half of America's workers. Yet the Democrats want to take them on. It is critical that these businesses also survive this pandemic to ensure that Americans have jobs to return to as it becomes safe to go back to work. I have heard some critics even suggest that allowing small businesses and pass-throughs to use their net operating losses is kind of a tax gimmick or loophole. Apparently, they don't understand that these are real economic losses that businesses incur because there isn't enough income to cover payroll, rent, utilities, and other fixed expenses. The whole goal of the CARES Act is to help businesses tap cash paid as taxes in prior years when times were very good, so that they can survive through this current crisis. When we drafted the CARES Act, we didn't pick winners and losers, and government shouldn't pick winners and losers. The tools generally apply to all types and sizes of businesses, from farmers and sole proprietorships to partnerships, to LLCs and S corporations, to the large corporations. They apply across all industries, since nearly every sector is bearing the burden of stay-at-home and shutdown orders across our entire Nation. Most importantly, we didn't try to decide which jobs were more worthy of saving than other types of jobs. Our goal was to help preserve as many jobs as possible, regardless of whatever business they were in. Those objectives were the right ones. This partisan tax increase also flies in the face of anti-recessionary fiscal policy 101. Find me a credible economist who says that we should raise taxes in a normal recession. It is just common sense not to. In a normal business cycle downturn, tax increases hurt, rather than help, the recovery. Why double down now, as the House is doing, in the greatest and sharpest economic contraction in modern history? The House Democrats have reverted to partisan politics, as usual, in the middle of the worst pandemic in more than 100 years and the worst economic crisis in nearly that long. Maybe, they should think about former President Obama's support for this kind of anti-recessionary fiscal policy back in 2009. What former President Obama said then should apply now: Don't raise taxes in a recession. Nevertheless, I am hopeful that we can maintain the bipartisan spirit of the CARES Act in the Senate as we chart the next steps to reopen the economy and get Americans back to work. While some businesses will feel the impact of this pandemic more than others, none of these businesses aredoing well. They all deserve as many tools as we can provide to weather this storm. What is more, employers across the country who have been relying on the CARES Act shouldn't be deterred by the misguided tax hike proposed by the House Democrats. The messaging bill that the House just passed can't be allowed to undermine access to capital needed to reopen their businesses, bring back employees, and win back the customers that made them successful before the pandemic attack. And to the Democratic critics, I say this: Let's put away the partisan attacks. Let's put away the political pandering. Let's keep working for the good of the country, so our families, businesses, and economy really can come out of these tough times on a strong footing and with the best shot at a rapid recovery. I yield the floor.
|
2020-01-06
|
Unknown
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2526-2
| null | 674
|
formal
|
based
| null |
white supremacist
|
Agriculture Madam President, in this time, it is interesting to note that, with all that is going on, America is still eating, and America is still moving because there are essential workers who are still serving. They are healthcare workers. They are grocery store workers. They are truckers. They are folks at convenience stores, gas stations, sanitation workers, and in power generation. They are farmers and ranchers. They are the refineries. Yes, they are even in government--public safety and law enforcement. While the news every day covers folks who are at home waiting to return to work, at times we forget the people who are working twice as hard right now to be able to make sure that is even possible. And we are grateful for what they are doing. We are grateful for the sacrifices of their families and of the hours they are putting in. But I want to highlight a couple of different groups that are unique in this mix--some of the folks who are really and truly behind the scenes and whom we really don't see a lot, but we see the end result of their products. Let me start with farmers and ranchers. They are folks who are on the farm and the ranch, and they are taking care of our food because, as we know well, food does not grow in a grocery store. It actually has to happen somewhere by folks putting in the workout in the Sun and getting the chance to be able to bring that crop in. We are watching it happen across my State and across the country right now. In Oklahoma, wheat is coming in, and it looks beautiful. It is green still, but in the days ahead, as it comes in, it will be very important to us. But it will be interesting to see this crop, if itis not taken out by the hail that is coming in this weekend. As it comes in, this crop will be very important to us. But this year the challenge will be that the H2A workers who typically come in literally from all over the world to do custom cutting are not able to come because of the coronavirus. And the challenge will be this: Will Americans step up when, literally, the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few? Will Americans step up and say: I will not let that harvest go to waste; I will engage and bring the harvest in. Folks who are in forestry--yes, forestry and logging is a crop in Oklahoma. For those of you who haven't been there, it is the eastern side of our State. It is incredibly important to us. We are seeing a boom in that area, thanks to things like a great need for boxes, for everyone who is getting all of their materials shipped to their house right now and this small commodity we call toilet paper, for which there seems to be a run on going on right now. Cotton, corn, sorghum, beans--there are so many things that are so important and behind the scenes. If we lose sight of that fact, we will just miss it. One of the things that has been in the news lately is livestock and the processing of the livestock. There has been news about how coronavirus has spread in some of those facilities. I have one of those facilities in my State. It is Seaboard. It is a tremendous operation, where folks have worked for decades in a tremendous place to be able to harvest those hogs and to turn them into fabulous things like bacon and pork chops. In this location in Texas County, in Guymon, we have seen an outbreak. The folks at Seaboard Farms have stepped up to it. Ninety-five percent of their workers have now been tested, and they are in the process of actually doing an entirely different test all over again just to be able to track and to be able to find, even for the people who were negative, if they will show up positive the next time and to make sure they are staying on top of it. But they are running at 60 percent operation right now. That may not seem like a big deal to you, but that is about 7,000 hogs a day that are not being harvested. They are having to be--what is euphemistically called--depopulated. That is a tremendous loss to everybody in the entire country. We are seeing major issues that are also happening with our beef production, as we have had enormous issues on trying to harvest those animals. As we go through the process and all the challenges, it has become extremely personal to a lot of the folks in my State. In my State, this is not just a theory. In my State, this is actually happening to real people. It is Jim Howard, a fourth-generation rancher, who ranches in Jefferson County. His whole family--his brother, his wife, his grandson, his sons-in-law--everyone is involved in the operation. They are ranching cows, calves, and stockers. They have a food lot operation. They have it all. But at this point, they are facing between 35 and 40 percent loss in the price of cattle. Literally, he loses money on every single cow. It is Robert Frymire, from Custer County. He is a third-generation wheat and cattle farmer. Using today's wheat prices, even with the crop that is coming in, he will lose $150,000 this year on his wheat crop, not to mention what is going to happen on the beef cattle. There is a reason we are trying to put solutions in the CARES Act. There is a reason we put $19 billion there to help our food supply, and $3 billion dollars of that has gone toward providing for our food pantries and nonprofits and places to be able to get food out to people so that food doesn't go to waste. But there is direct aid that is going to farmers and ranchers to make sure we keep those operations alive long term, because we need them to exist at the end of this. We are grateful to be able to come alongside of them. There are real challenges in the packing operations that are not new. They have been around for a while. We are pushing in a couple of areas to say: We have to solve a couple of these problems. Our small packing houses that are out there pay almost $80 an hour for overtime fees. That is $80 an hour for each inspector to do overtime. So if we have a location like Seaboard Farms that goes down, and they want to be able to go out to another location and to ramp up, they are actually financially punished from being able to do that, and they can't make the math work. We have to solve that so that we are not punishing small to medium-sized operations for ramping up in moments when we need them. And we need the small and medium-sized businesses to be able to ramp up and grow larger. And we have to solve the issue of the CIS Program, which is allowing folks to be able to sell over State lines. Twenty-seven States, including my own, have State inspection programs that are equal to the USDA program. They have to be equal to it, but they are still not allowed to sell over State lines until they get the CIS Program done, and only three States have been able to complete that. This should be logical. We should be able to solve this. Those two things would allow long-term fixes for the packing house operations. It is something we have complained about for a long time, and we should have solved this at this moment because it has become even more obvious. The issues about energy continue to rise for us. As a nation, we are finally energy independent--finally. We choose to buy energy from places where we want to buy energy because we can produce it ourselves, but we cannot go backward to a time period when we were dependent on the Middle East again because of what has happened with COVID-19. We have to pay attention to this. There are commonsense solutions, and I understand full well that there are some folks who don't like fossil fuels. I get it, but those same folks fly on planes and drive cars and trucks. And we like wearing clothes, and we like having paint. And as for all of those things that are disposable now, like PPE, guess what they are made of. Petroleum. There is this whole challenge about trying to get away from petroleum. It has been interesting to me how many people have suddenly gone from ``let's reuse everything'' to the last 2 months saying: No, actually, we want to have disposable everything now. Well, guess what. Those disposable items are made with petroleum products. We do need this balance. We can do it clean, but we have to be able to keep this part of industry open and still functioning. And if the whole system collapses, we will not be able to do that. Many of you know that my State is a production State. At times, we will have hundreds of wells for oil and gas running. Right now, in the entire State of Oklahoma, there are 12 rigs working--12. That is the collapse of thousands and thousands of jobs, and if those jobs and those companies go away and do not recover, then, we are suddenly dependent on the Middle East again. We cannot go there. We have to resolve that. That is why the Paycheck Protection Program was opened up to small businesses--and, yes, even energy companies--to help sustain them for a couple of months to be able to get through this. But it is going to be a very big challenge for them. Quite frankly, there is something that is news to this body that I want to raise. In 2007, long before I was in Congress, Congress passed an act dealing with ethanol, mandating a certain number of gallons of ethanol to be used every year. Well, guess what. America wasn't driving in March and in April. That means we are not going to be close to the number of gallons of gasoline that we normally use, but we still have a requirement sitting out there for the number of gallons of ethanol that have to be used this year. We literally have an energy-ticking timebomb, based on a bad law that was written years ago dealing with ethanol, and if we are not careful, we are going to cause even bigger challenges in energy based on that ethanol law and the number of gallons that are required when there is literally no way, even if we poured it on the ground, that we can use the gallons required in that law. That is going to be an issue for us, and it is one that we need to work cooperatively on and in a nonpartisan way to say: Let's have some common sense in this moment to solve how we deal with our energy, lest the prices of gasoline explode at the backside of this, not because of undersupply but because of ethanol regulations. Weshould not allow that to occur. We should be able to not only solve that for this year but solve it long term. I am grateful for the folks who are farmers and ranchers who are working, and in energy, the folks who work behind the scenes, who make America move, because in the days ahead, we will start moving. My State has already reached phase 2 of reopening, and we continue to see a decline in the number of cases, but those folks who were working behind the scenes the whole time are making the difference for us.
|
2020-01-06
|
Unknown
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2535-3
| null | 675
|
formal
|
single
| null |
homophobic
|
Agriculture Madam President, in this time, it is interesting to note that, with all that is going on, America is still eating, and America is still moving because there are essential workers who are still serving. They are healthcare workers. They are grocery store workers. They are truckers. They are folks at convenience stores, gas stations, sanitation workers, and in power generation. They are farmers and ranchers. They are the refineries. Yes, they are even in government--public safety and law enforcement. While the news every day covers folks who are at home waiting to return to work, at times we forget the people who are working twice as hard right now to be able to make sure that is even possible. And we are grateful for what they are doing. We are grateful for the sacrifices of their families and of the hours they are putting in. But I want to highlight a couple of different groups that are unique in this mix--some of the folks who are really and truly behind the scenes and whom we really don't see a lot, but we see the end result of their products. Let me start with farmers and ranchers. They are folks who are on the farm and the ranch, and they are taking care of our food because, as we know well, food does not grow in a grocery store. It actually has to happen somewhere by folks putting in the workout in the Sun and getting the chance to be able to bring that crop in. We are watching it happen across my State and across the country right now. In Oklahoma, wheat is coming in, and it looks beautiful. It is green still, but in the days ahead, as it comes in, it will be very important to us. But it will be interesting to see this crop, if itis not taken out by the hail that is coming in this weekend. As it comes in, this crop will be very important to us. But this year the challenge will be that the H2A workers who typically come in literally from all over the world to do custom cutting are not able to come because of the coronavirus. And the challenge will be this: Will Americans step up when, literally, the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few? Will Americans step up and say: I will not let that harvest go to waste; I will engage and bring the harvest in. Folks who are in forestry--yes, forestry and logging is a crop in Oklahoma. For those of you who haven't been there, it is the eastern side of our State. It is incredibly important to us. We are seeing a boom in that area, thanks to things like a great need for boxes, for everyone who is getting all of their materials shipped to their house right now and this small commodity we call toilet paper, for which there seems to be a run on going on right now. Cotton, corn, sorghum, beans--there are so many things that are so important and behind the scenes. If we lose sight of that fact, we will just miss it. One of the things that has been in the news lately is livestock and the processing of the livestock. There has been news about how coronavirus has spread in some of those facilities. I have one of those facilities in my State. It is Seaboard. It is a tremendous operation, where folks have worked for decades in a tremendous place to be able to harvest those hogs and to turn them into fabulous things like bacon and pork chops. In this location in Texas County, in Guymon, we have seen an outbreak. The folks at Seaboard Farms have stepped up to it. Ninety-five percent of their workers have now been tested, and they are in the process of actually doing an entirely different test all over again just to be able to track and to be able to find, even for the people who were negative, if they will show up positive the next time and to make sure they are staying on top of it. But they are running at 60 percent operation right now. That may not seem like a big deal to you, but that is about 7,000 hogs a day that are not being harvested. They are having to be--what is euphemistically called--depopulated. That is a tremendous loss to everybody in the entire country. We are seeing major issues that are also happening with our beef production, as we have had enormous issues on trying to harvest those animals. As we go through the process and all the challenges, it has become extremely personal to a lot of the folks in my State. In my State, this is not just a theory. In my State, this is actually happening to real people. It is Jim Howard, a fourth-generation rancher, who ranches in Jefferson County. His whole family--his brother, his wife, his grandson, his sons-in-law--everyone is involved in the operation. They are ranching cows, calves, and stockers. They have a food lot operation. They have it all. But at this point, they are facing between 35 and 40 percent loss in the price of cattle. Literally, he loses money on every single cow. It is Robert Frymire, from Custer County. He is a third-generation wheat and cattle farmer. Using today's wheat prices, even with the crop that is coming in, he will lose $150,000 this year on his wheat crop, not to mention what is going to happen on the beef cattle. There is a reason we are trying to put solutions in the CARES Act. There is a reason we put $19 billion there to help our food supply, and $3 billion dollars of that has gone toward providing for our food pantries and nonprofits and places to be able to get food out to people so that food doesn't go to waste. But there is direct aid that is going to farmers and ranchers to make sure we keep those operations alive long term, because we need them to exist at the end of this. We are grateful to be able to come alongside of them. There are real challenges in the packing operations that are not new. They have been around for a while. We are pushing in a couple of areas to say: We have to solve a couple of these problems. Our small packing houses that are out there pay almost $80 an hour for overtime fees. That is $80 an hour for each inspector to do overtime. So if we have a location like Seaboard Farms that goes down, and they want to be able to go out to another location and to ramp up, they are actually financially punished from being able to do that, and they can't make the math work. We have to solve that so that we are not punishing small to medium-sized operations for ramping up in moments when we need them. And we need the small and medium-sized businesses to be able to ramp up and grow larger. And we have to solve the issue of the CIS Program, which is allowing folks to be able to sell over State lines. Twenty-seven States, including my own, have State inspection programs that are equal to the USDA program. They have to be equal to it, but they are still not allowed to sell over State lines until they get the CIS Program done, and only three States have been able to complete that. This should be logical. We should be able to solve this. Those two things would allow long-term fixes for the packing house operations. It is something we have complained about for a long time, and we should have solved this at this moment because it has become even more obvious. The issues about energy continue to rise for us. As a nation, we are finally energy independent--finally. We choose to buy energy from places where we want to buy energy because we can produce it ourselves, but we cannot go backward to a time period when we were dependent on the Middle East again because of what has happened with COVID-19. We have to pay attention to this. There are commonsense solutions, and I understand full well that there are some folks who don't like fossil fuels. I get it, but those same folks fly on planes and drive cars and trucks. And we like wearing clothes, and we like having paint. And as for all of those things that are disposable now, like PPE, guess what they are made of. Petroleum. There is this whole challenge about trying to get away from petroleum. It has been interesting to me how many people have suddenly gone from ``let's reuse everything'' to the last 2 months saying: No, actually, we want to have disposable everything now. Well, guess what. Those disposable items are made with petroleum products. We do need this balance. We can do it clean, but we have to be able to keep this part of industry open and still functioning. And if the whole system collapses, we will not be able to do that. Many of you know that my State is a production State. At times, we will have hundreds of wells for oil and gas running. Right now, in the entire State of Oklahoma, there are 12 rigs working--12. That is the collapse of thousands and thousands of jobs, and if those jobs and those companies go away and do not recover, then, we are suddenly dependent on the Middle East again. We cannot go there. We have to resolve that. That is why the Paycheck Protection Program was opened up to small businesses--and, yes, even energy companies--to help sustain them for a couple of months to be able to get through this. But it is going to be a very big challenge for them. Quite frankly, there is something that is news to this body that I want to raise. In 2007, long before I was in Congress, Congress passed an act dealing with ethanol, mandating a certain number of gallons of ethanol to be used every year. Well, guess what. America wasn't driving in March and in April. That means we are not going to be close to the number of gallons of gasoline that we normally use, but we still have a requirement sitting out there for the number of gallons of ethanol that have to be used this year. We literally have an energy-ticking timebomb, based on a bad law that was written years ago dealing with ethanol, and if we are not careful, we are going to cause even bigger challenges in energy based on that ethanol law and the number of gallons that are required when there is literally no way, even if we poured it on the ground, that we can use the gallons required in that law. That is going to be an issue for us, and it is one that we need to work cooperatively on and in a nonpartisan way to say: Let's have some common sense in this moment to solve how we deal with our energy, lest the prices of gasoline explode at the backside of this, not because of undersupply but because of ethanol regulations. Weshould not allow that to occur. We should be able to not only solve that for this year but solve it long term. I am grateful for the folks who are farmers and ranchers who are working, and in energy, the folks who work behind the scenes, who make America move, because in the days ahead, we will start moving. My State has already reached phase 2 of reopening, and we continue to see a decline in the number of cases, but those folks who were working behind the scenes the whole time are making the difference for us.
|
2020-01-06
|
Unknown
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2535-3
| null | 676
|
formal
|
based
| null |
white supremacist
|
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Americans owe a great deal of gratitude to healthcare workers on the frontlines of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. I can't tell you how many heartbreaking stories I have read of these healthcare workers who are so depressed over the number of infections, the suffering that people are going through, and, of course, those whose lives have been taken by this coronavirus. I can't imagine what it is like physically and mentally, what they go through. Bless them. Bless them for caring enough for us and for our families to risk their own lives and go to work every single day. I want to spend a minute talking about a special group of these healthcare workers--immigrants. That is right--immigrants. Consider this: 1 in 6 healthcare and social service workers is an immigrant; 3.1 million out of 18.7 million. Over 3 million immigrants. These immigrants are playing a crucial role in the battle against the pandemic. Yet, the President continues to disparage them falsely, claiming they are a drain on society. He wishes they would leave. I hope they never do. I have come to the floor to tell the story of one. I will continue to highlight these stories because we need to put faces on this issue. You need to understand who these people are, these people who are immigrants to this country and willing to risk their lives to save ours. I invite my colleagues to do the same. Tell the stories in your own States. I can guarantee you, wherever you are from, there are immigrant health heroes. Not to take anything away from those who are not new immigrants, but these people need special attention at a time when there is so much criticism of immigration to this country of immigrants. Many of these healthcare workers are young immigrants who came here as children. They are known as Dreamers. I know because 20 years ago, I introduced the DREAM Act so that these young people, brought to this country as toddlers, infants, and little kids, could have a chance to be part of a future. They are American in every way except their immigration status. I joined with Republican Dick Lugar years ago on a bipartisan basis, calling on the President to use his authority to protect these Dreamers from being deported. President Obama responded. He created the DACA Program. DACA provided temporary protection from deportation to Dreamers if they registered with the government, paid a $500 filing fee, went through a criminal background check, and had no serious problems. They were allowed to stay 2 years at a time, not be deported, and legally work in America. More than 800,000 Dreamers came forward and received DACA protection, and let me tell you what they did. They turned around and became teachers, nurses, soldiers, small business owners, and 100 other things important to America. Listen to this: More than 200,000 DACA recipients are essential critical infrastructure workers. I didn't make that up; that number came out of President Trump's own Department of Homeland Security. Among these essential workers are 41,700 DACA recipients in the healthcare industry. These include doctors, intensive care nurses, paramedics, and respiratory therapists. Understand this: These are undocumented people in America, brought here as children, grew up here, went to school here, got an education, developed skills and training, and now we need them in this pandemic--41,700 of them. On September 5, 2017, President Trump repealed DACA. Hundreds of thousands of Dreamers faced losing their work permits and being deported from this country to places that many of them barely remember. Thank goodness the court stepped in to stop the President's action, but the President decided to appeal the case, and now, across the street in the Supreme Court, they are sitting on a case that will decide the fate of 800,000 of these DACAprotectees, many of them--thousands of them healthcare workers who are doing essential work every day. We can get a decision from the Court any day. Will we be better off if 41,000 of these DACA healthcare professionals are deported from this country in the midst of this pandemic? No sensible person believes we would be. If the Court rules in favor of President Trump, up to 200,000 essential workers in America would be sidelined in the middle of this national emergency. Many of them face deportation. I sent a letter to the President, with 37 of my Senate colleagues last month, urging him to extend the work authorization for DACA recipients to the end of the year. It is not too much to ask. They have lived in this country for years, and they passed a criminal background check. For goodness' sake, Mr. President, don't get tough on these people when we need them the most. But if you consider what the President said about immigrants over and over again, I know it is unlikely that he is going to have a moment of caring when it comes to their future, so Congress has to step in. The HEROES Act, which the House of Representatives passed last week and which we did not even consider this week in the U.S. Senate, includes a provision to automatically extend work authorizations for DACA recipients. This is what they are talking about when critics of that House action come to the floor and talk about all the benefits for undocumented people living in this country--the extension of DACA protection for thousands of essential workers in this country who are protected by DACA. They say: Oh, it sounds like they are opening the doors for illegal people to come in here and get royal treatment in America. The opposite is true. These are people who are risking their lives providing healthcare and essential services across America. The HEROES Act that passed in the House of Representatives simply said we are not going to deport them. What a radical suggestion, that we could use their help and we need their help through the rest of the year. We certainly do. Those who come and mock this provision by saying it is just a giveaway to illegal immigrants are really doing a disservice to these people and the sacrifice they are making. Ultimately, we need to give these Dreamers a chance to become citizens. I believe it now, and I have believed it for 20 years. It has been that long since I introduced the DREAM Act, a bipartisan bill, which would accomplish that. Last year, the Congress passed the Dream and Promise Act, which would have solved this problem based on the DREAM Act. The vote was 237 to 187 in the House. Leader McConnell has refused to even consider calling that measure for consideration in the Senate. And it isn't because we are overworked; just take a look at this empty Chamber. Over the years, I have come to the floor of the Senate more than 100 times to tell the stories of Dreamers. I want you to know who they are. These stories show what is at stake when we consider the future of DACA. Today, I want to tell you about Javier Quiroz Castro. Here is Javier dressed for work. He is the 121st Dreamer whose story I have told on the Senate floor. Javier's parents brought him to the United States when he was 3 years old. He grew up in Nashville, TN. His father worked in construction as a bricklayer. His mother cleaned homes and office buildings. As the oldest child and the best English speaker, Javier took care of his three younger siblings and helped his family navigate the challenges of being in America. Javier went to a private Christian college in Nashville, Lipscomb University. At Lipscomb, he discovered his love of nursing. He enrolled in the school of nursing and did his clinical training at Vanderbilt Medical Center. Javier graduated in May 2013 with his bachelor's in science of nursing. Javier received the Spirit of Nursing Award, which each year is given to only one nursing student who has best delivered quality care. Because President Obama established DACA in 2012, Javier had a chance. Before that, he had no chance to become a registered nurse in this country. But he had a chance, and he took advantage of it. Javier now lives in Houston, TX, and works at Houston Methodist Hospital. He is part of the team taking care of patients with COVID-19. This is what he wears to work. Javier wrote me a letter. Here is what he said: Thanks to DACA, I have been able to save a lot of lives. I have been able to be there with patients at their final moments of life. I have been able to take care of people of many different backgrounds, nationalities, races, socioeconomic levels, and cultures. This wouldn't be complete if I didn't introduce you to Javier's daughter. Take a look at this beautiful little girl. This is Isabelle Quiroz. A few weeks ago, she took her first steps. I bet you she is about the same age as my granddaughter, whose birthday is Friday of this week. She is about to take her first steps too. This beautiful little girl, Javier's little girl, her faith and future are at stake, too, in this debate in the U.S. Senate. I want to wish Isabelle a happy birthday tomorrow and my little granddaughter Jill a happy birthday on Friday. Javier's wife is also a nurse. She and Javier worry every day about not infecting their baby daughter as they go to work to save other people, but they still get up every day and go to work to care for their patients. I want to thank Javier Quiroz Castro for his service. He is indeed a healthcare hero. He is an immigrant healthcare hero. He puts himself and his family at risk in order to save American lives. He shouldn't have to worry about a decision across the street at the Supreme Court which would deport him back to a country he cannot even remember. We must do better. We are better than that as a country, to say to someone like Javier: Well, thank you for working so darn hard. Thank you for getting through nursing school with the highest grades. Thank you for your professionalism. Thank you for risking your life for America. But I am sorry, buddy, you are undocumented. Get out of the country. The bill that passed the House would protect him until the end of the year--until the end of the year. Yet Members come to the floor and mock this bill and say: Oh, you are trying to give things away to illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants like Javier? Get real. Get serious. Be human. We have to do better for Javier and the DACA recipients. They are counting on us--those of us in the Senate--to solve this crisis created by President Trump's action. As long as I am a Senator, I will continue to come to the floor of the Senate to advocate for Javier and the Dreamers. I have done it for a long time, but the job is not finished. It would be an American tragedy to deport this brave and talented nurse who is saving lives in Houston, TX, as we speak. We must ensure that Javier and hundreds of thousands of others in our essential workforce are not forced to stop working when we need them the most. Ultimately, we need to pass legislation that demonstrates who we are, what we believe in, and what our values are. What does it say about America if we say to Javier ``We don't need you''? We do. We need him and so many just like him who are performing essential services at this time of national emergency. I yield the floor.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. DURBIN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2538
| null | 677
|
formal
|
illegal immigrant
| null |
anti-Latino
|
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Americans owe a great deal of gratitude to healthcare workers on the frontlines of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. I can't tell you how many heartbreaking stories I have read of these healthcare workers who are so depressed over the number of infections, the suffering that people are going through, and, of course, those whose lives have been taken by this coronavirus. I can't imagine what it is like physically and mentally, what they go through. Bless them. Bless them for caring enough for us and for our families to risk their own lives and go to work every single day. I want to spend a minute talking about a special group of these healthcare workers--immigrants. That is right--immigrants. Consider this: 1 in 6 healthcare and social service workers is an immigrant; 3.1 million out of 18.7 million. Over 3 million immigrants. These immigrants are playing a crucial role in the battle against the pandemic. Yet, the President continues to disparage them falsely, claiming they are a drain on society. He wishes they would leave. I hope they never do. I have come to the floor to tell the story of one. I will continue to highlight these stories because we need to put faces on this issue. You need to understand who these people are, these people who are immigrants to this country and willing to risk their lives to save ours. I invite my colleagues to do the same. Tell the stories in your own States. I can guarantee you, wherever you are from, there are immigrant health heroes. Not to take anything away from those who are not new immigrants, but these people need special attention at a time when there is so much criticism of immigration to this country of immigrants. Many of these healthcare workers are young immigrants who came here as children. They are known as Dreamers. I know because 20 years ago, I introduced the DREAM Act so that these young people, brought to this country as toddlers, infants, and little kids, could have a chance to be part of a future. They are American in every way except their immigration status. I joined with Republican Dick Lugar years ago on a bipartisan basis, calling on the President to use his authority to protect these Dreamers from being deported. President Obama responded. He created the DACA Program. DACA provided temporary protection from deportation to Dreamers if they registered with the government, paid a $500 filing fee, went through a criminal background check, and had no serious problems. They were allowed to stay 2 years at a time, not be deported, and legally work in America. More than 800,000 Dreamers came forward and received DACA protection, and let me tell you what they did. They turned around and became teachers, nurses, soldiers, small business owners, and 100 other things important to America. Listen to this: More than 200,000 DACA recipients are essential critical infrastructure workers. I didn't make that up; that number came out of President Trump's own Department of Homeland Security. Among these essential workers are 41,700 DACA recipients in the healthcare industry. These include doctors, intensive care nurses, paramedics, and respiratory therapists. Understand this: These are undocumented people in America, brought here as children, grew up here, went to school here, got an education, developed skills and training, and now we need them in this pandemic--41,700 of them. On September 5, 2017, President Trump repealed DACA. Hundreds of thousands of Dreamers faced losing their work permits and being deported from this country to places that many of them barely remember. Thank goodness the court stepped in to stop the President's action, but the President decided to appeal the case, and now, across the street in the Supreme Court, they are sitting on a case that will decide the fate of 800,000 of these DACAprotectees, many of them--thousands of them healthcare workers who are doing essential work every day. We can get a decision from the Court any day. Will we be better off if 41,000 of these DACA healthcare professionals are deported from this country in the midst of this pandemic? No sensible person believes we would be. If the Court rules in favor of President Trump, up to 200,000 essential workers in America would be sidelined in the middle of this national emergency. Many of them face deportation. I sent a letter to the President, with 37 of my Senate colleagues last month, urging him to extend the work authorization for DACA recipients to the end of the year. It is not too much to ask. They have lived in this country for years, and they passed a criminal background check. For goodness' sake, Mr. President, don't get tough on these people when we need them the most. But if you consider what the President said about immigrants over and over again, I know it is unlikely that he is going to have a moment of caring when it comes to their future, so Congress has to step in. The HEROES Act, which the House of Representatives passed last week and which we did not even consider this week in the U.S. Senate, includes a provision to automatically extend work authorizations for DACA recipients. This is what they are talking about when critics of that House action come to the floor and talk about all the benefits for undocumented people living in this country--the extension of DACA protection for thousands of essential workers in this country who are protected by DACA. They say: Oh, it sounds like they are opening the doors for illegal people to come in here and get royal treatment in America. The opposite is true. These are people who are risking their lives providing healthcare and essential services across America. The HEROES Act that passed in the House of Representatives simply said we are not going to deport them. What a radical suggestion, that we could use their help and we need their help through the rest of the year. We certainly do. Those who come and mock this provision by saying it is just a giveaway to illegal immigrants are really doing a disservice to these people and the sacrifice they are making. Ultimately, we need to give these Dreamers a chance to become citizens. I believe it now, and I have believed it for 20 years. It has been that long since I introduced the DREAM Act, a bipartisan bill, which would accomplish that. Last year, the Congress passed the Dream and Promise Act, which would have solved this problem based on the DREAM Act. The vote was 237 to 187 in the House. Leader McConnell has refused to even consider calling that measure for consideration in the Senate. And it isn't because we are overworked; just take a look at this empty Chamber. Over the years, I have come to the floor of the Senate more than 100 times to tell the stories of Dreamers. I want you to know who they are. These stories show what is at stake when we consider the future of DACA. Today, I want to tell you about Javier Quiroz Castro. Here is Javier dressed for work. He is the 121st Dreamer whose story I have told on the Senate floor. Javier's parents brought him to the United States when he was 3 years old. He grew up in Nashville, TN. His father worked in construction as a bricklayer. His mother cleaned homes and office buildings. As the oldest child and the best English speaker, Javier took care of his three younger siblings and helped his family navigate the challenges of being in America. Javier went to a private Christian college in Nashville, Lipscomb University. At Lipscomb, he discovered his love of nursing. He enrolled in the school of nursing and did his clinical training at Vanderbilt Medical Center. Javier graduated in May 2013 with his bachelor's in science of nursing. Javier received the Spirit of Nursing Award, which each year is given to only one nursing student who has best delivered quality care. Because President Obama established DACA in 2012, Javier had a chance. Before that, he had no chance to become a registered nurse in this country. But he had a chance, and he took advantage of it. Javier now lives in Houston, TX, and works at Houston Methodist Hospital. He is part of the team taking care of patients with COVID-19. This is what he wears to work. Javier wrote me a letter. Here is what he said: Thanks to DACA, I have been able to save a lot of lives. I have been able to be there with patients at their final moments of life. I have been able to take care of people of many different backgrounds, nationalities, races, socioeconomic levels, and cultures. This wouldn't be complete if I didn't introduce you to Javier's daughter. Take a look at this beautiful little girl. This is Isabelle Quiroz. A few weeks ago, she took her first steps. I bet you she is about the same age as my granddaughter, whose birthday is Friday of this week. She is about to take her first steps too. This beautiful little girl, Javier's little girl, her faith and future are at stake, too, in this debate in the U.S. Senate. I want to wish Isabelle a happy birthday tomorrow and my little granddaughter Jill a happy birthday on Friday. Javier's wife is also a nurse. She and Javier worry every day about not infecting their baby daughter as they go to work to save other people, but they still get up every day and go to work to care for their patients. I want to thank Javier Quiroz Castro for his service. He is indeed a healthcare hero. He is an immigrant healthcare hero. He puts himself and his family at risk in order to save American lives. He shouldn't have to worry about a decision across the street at the Supreme Court which would deport him back to a country he cannot even remember. We must do better. We are better than that as a country, to say to someone like Javier: Well, thank you for working so darn hard. Thank you for getting through nursing school with the highest grades. Thank you for your professionalism. Thank you for risking your life for America. But I am sorry, buddy, you are undocumented. Get out of the country. The bill that passed the House would protect him until the end of the year--until the end of the year. Yet Members come to the floor and mock this bill and say: Oh, you are trying to give things away to illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants like Javier? Get real. Get serious. Be human. We have to do better for Javier and the DACA recipients. They are counting on us--those of us in the Senate--to solve this crisis created by President Trump's action. As long as I am a Senator, I will continue to come to the floor of the Senate to advocate for Javier and the Dreamers. I have done it for a long time, but the job is not finished. It would be an American tragedy to deport this brave and talented nurse who is saving lives in Houston, TX, as we speak. We must ensure that Javier and hundreds of thousands of others in our essential workforce are not forced to stop working when we need them the most. Ultimately, we need to pass legislation that demonstrates who we are, what we believe in, and what our values are. What does it say about America if we say to Javier ``We don't need you''? We do. We need him and so many just like him who are performing essential services at this time of national emergency. I yield the floor.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. DURBIN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2538
| null | 678
|
formal
|
illegal immigrants
| null |
anti-Latino
|
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Americans owe a great deal of gratitude to healthcare workers on the frontlines of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. I can't tell you how many heartbreaking stories I have read of these healthcare workers who are so depressed over the number of infections, the suffering that people are going through, and, of course, those whose lives have been taken by this coronavirus. I can't imagine what it is like physically and mentally, what they go through. Bless them. Bless them for caring enough for us and for our families to risk their own lives and go to work every single day. I want to spend a minute talking about a special group of these healthcare workers--immigrants. That is right--immigrants. Consider this: 1 in 6 healthcare and social service workers is an immigrant; 3.1 million out of 18.7 million. Over 3 million immigrants. These immigrants are playing a crucial role in the battle against the pandemic. Yet, the President continues to disparage them falsely, claiming they are a drain on society. He wishes they would leave. I hope they never do. I have come to the floor to tell the story of one. I will continue to highlight these stories because we need to put faces on this issue. You need to understand who these people are, these people who are immigrants to this country and willing to risk their lives to save ours. I invite my colleagues to do the same. Tell the stories in your own States. I can guarantee you, wherever you are from, there are immigrant health heroes. Not to take anything away from those who are not new immigrants, but these people need special attention at a time when there is so much criticism of immigration to this country of immigrants. Many of these healthcare workers are young immigrants who came here as children. They are known as Dreamers. I know because 20 years ago, I introduced the DREAM Act so that these young people, brought to this country as toddlers, infants, and little kids, could have a chance to be part of a future. They are American in every way except their immigration status. I joined with Republican Dick Lugar years ago on a bipartisan basis, calling on the President to use his authority to protect these Dreamers from being deported. President Obama responded. He created the DACA Program. DACA provided temporary protection from deportation to Dreamers if they registered with the government, paid a $500 filing fee, went through a criminal background check, and had no serious problems. They were allowed to stay 2 years at a time, not be deported, and legally work in America. More than 800,000 Dreamers came forward and received DACA protection, and let me tell you what they did. They turned around and became teachers, nurses, soldiers, small business owners, and 100 other things important to America. Listen to this: More than 200,000 DACA recipients are essential critical infrastructure workers. I didn't make that up; that number came out of President Trump's own Department of Homeland Security. Among these essential workers are 41,700 DACA recipients in the healthcare industry. These include doctors, intensive care nurses, paramedics, and respiratory therapists. Understand this: These are undocumented people in America, brought here as children, grew up here, went to school here, got an education, developed skills and training, and now we need them in this pandemic--41,700 of them. On September 5, 2017, President Trump repealed DACA. Hundreds of thousands of Dreamers faced losing their work permits and being deported from this country to places that many of them barely remember. Thank goodness the court stepped in to stop the President's action, but the President decided to appeal the case, and now, across the street in the Supreme Court, they are sitting on a case that will decide the fate of 800,000 of these DACAprotectees, many of them--thousands of them healthcare workers who are doing essential work every day. We can get a decision from the Court any day. Will we be better off if 41,000 of these DACA healthcare professionals are deported from this country in the midst of this pandemic? No sensible person believes we would be. If the Court rules in favor of President Trump, up to 200,000 essential workers in America would be sidelined in the middle of this national emergency. Many of them face deportation. I sent a letter to the President, with 37 of my Senate colleagues last month, urging him to extend the work authorization for DACA recipients to the end of the year. It is not too much to ask. They have lived in this country for years, and they passed a criminal background check. For goodness' sake, Mr. President, don't get tough on these people when we need them the most. But if you consider what the President said about immigrants over and over again, I know it is unlikely that he is going to have a moment of caring when it comes to their future, so Congress has to step in. The HEROES Act, which the House of Representatives passed last week and which we did not even consider this week in the U.S. Senate, includes a provision to automatically extend work authorizations for DACA recipients. This is what they are talking about when critics of that House action come to the floor and talk about all the benefits for undocumented people living in this country--the extension of DACA protection for thousands of essential workers in this country who are protected by DACA. They say: Oh, it sounds like they are opening the doors for illegal people to come in here and get royal treatment in America. The opposite is true. These are people who are risking their lives providing healthcare and essential services across America. The HEROES Act that passed in the House of Representatives simply said we are not going to deport them. What a radical suggestion, that we could use their help and we need their help through the rest of the year. We certainly do. Those who come and mock this provision by saying it is just a giveaway to illegal immigrants are really doing a disservice to these people and the sacrifice they are making. Ultimately, we need to give these Dreamers a chance to become citizens. I believe it now, and I have believed it for 20 years. It has been that long since I introduced the DREAM Act, a bipartisan bill, which would accomplish that. Last year, the Congress passed the Dream and Promise Act, which would have solved this problem based on the DREAM Act. The vote was 237 to 187 in the House. Leader McConnell has refused to even consider calling that measure for consideration in the Senate. And it isn't because we are overworked; just take a look at this empty Chamber. Over the years, I have come to the floor of the Senate more than 100 times to tell the stories of Dreamers. I want you to know who they are. These stories show what is at stake when we consider the future of DACA. Today, I want to tell you about Javier Quiroz Castro. Here is Javier dressed for work. He is the 121st Dreamer whose story I have told on the Senate floor. Javier's parents brought him to the United States when he was 3 years old. He grew up in Nashville, TN. His father worked in construction as a bricklayer. His mother cleaned homes and office buildings. As the oldest child and the best English speaker, Javier took care of his three younger siblings and helped his family navigate the challenges of being in America. Javier went to a private Christian college in Nashville, Lipscomb University. At Lipscomb, he discovered his love of nursing. He enrolled in the school of nursing and did his clinical training at Vanderbilt Medical Center. Javier graduated in May 2013 with his bachelor's in science of nursing. Javier received the Spirit of Nursing Award, which each year is given to only one nursing student who has best delivered quality care. Because President Obama established DACA in 2012, Javier had a chance. Before that, he had no chance to become a registered nurse in this country. But he had a chance, and he took advantage of it. Javier now lives in Houston, TX, and works at Houston Methodist Hospital. He is part of the team taking care of patients with COVID-19. This is what he wears to work. Javier wrote me a letter. Here is what he said: Thanks to DACA, I have been able to save a lot of lives. I have been able to be there with patients at their final moments of life. I have been able to take care of people of many different backgrounds, nationalities, races, socioeconomic levels, and cultures. This wouldn't be complete if I didn't introduce you to Javier's daughter. Take a look at this beautiful little girl. This is Isabelle Quiroz. A few weeks ago, she took her first steps. I bet you she is about the same age as my granddaughter, whose birthday is Friday of this week. She is about to take her first steps too. This beautiful little girl, Javier's little girl, her faith and future are at stake, too, in this debate in the U.S. Senate. I want to wish Isabelle a happy birthday tomorrow and my little granddaughter Jill a happy birthday on Friday. Javier's wife is also a nurse. She and Javier worry every day about not infecting their baby daughter as they go to work to save other people, but they still get up every day and go to work to care for their patients. I want to thank Javier Quiroz Castro for his service. He is indeed a healthcare hero. He is an immigrant healthcare hero. He puts himself and his family at risk in order to save American lives. He shouldn't have to worry about a decision across the street at the Supreme Court which would deport him back to a country he cannot even remember. We must do better. We are better than that as a country, to say to someone like Javier: Well, thank you for working so darn hard. Thank you for getting through nursing school with the highest grades. Thank you for your professionalism. Thank you for risking your life for America. But I am sorry, buddy, you are undocumented. Get out of the country. The bill that passed the House would protect him until the end of the year--until the end of the year. Yet Members come to the floor and mock this bill and say: Oh, you are trying to give things away to illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants like Javier? Get real. Get serious. Be human. We have to do better for Javier and the DACA recipients. They are counting on us--those of us in the Senate--to solve this crisis created by President Trump's action. As long as I am a Senator, I will continue to come to the floor of the Senate to advocate for Javier and the Dreamers. I have done it for a long time, but the job is not finished. It would be an American tragedy to deport this brave and talented nurse who is saving lives in Houston, TX, as we speak. We must ensure that Javier and hundreds of thousands of others in our essential workforce are not forced to stop working when we need them the most. Ultimately, we need to pass legislation that demonstrates who we are, what we believe in, and what our values are. What does it say about America if we say to Javier ``We don't need you''? We do. We need him and so many just like him who are performing essential services at this time of national emergency. I yield the floor.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. DURBIN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2538
| null | 679
|
formal
|
single
| null |
homophobic
|
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Americans owe a great deal of gratitude to healthcare workers on the frontlines of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. I can't tell you how many heartbreaking stories I have read of these healthcare workers who are so depressed over the number of infections, the suffering that people are going through, and, of course, those whose lives have been taken by this coronavirus. I can't imagine what it is like physically and mentally, what they go through. Bless them. Bless them for caring enough for us and for our families to risk their own lives and go to work every single day. I want to spend a minute talking about a special group of these healthcare workers--immigrants. That is right--immigrants. Consider this: 1 in 6 healthcare and social service workers is an immigrant; 3.1 million out of 18.7 million. Over 3 million immigrants. These immigrants are playing a crucial role in the battle against the pandemic. Yet, the President continues to disparage them falsely, claiming they are a drain on society. He wishes they would leave. I hope they never do. I have come to the floor to tell the story of one. I will continue to highlight these stories because we need to put faces on this issue. You need to understand who these people are, these people who are immigrants to this country and willing to risk their lives to save ours. I invite my colleagues to do the same. Tell the stories in your own States. I can guarantee you, wherever you are from, there are immigrant health heroes. Not to take anything away from those who are not new immigrants, but these people need special attention at a time when there is so much criticism of immigration to this country of immigrants. Many of these healthcare workers are young immigrants who came here as children. They are known as Dreamers. I know because 20 years ago, I introduced the DREAM Act so that these young people, brought to this country as toddlers, infants, and little kids, could have a chance to be part of a future. They are American in every way except their immigration status. I joined with Republican Dick Lugar years ago on a bipartisan basis, calling on the President to use his authority to protect these Dreamers from being deported. President Obama responded. He created the DACA Program. DACA provided temporary protection from deportation to Dreamers if they registered with the government, paid a $500 filing fee, went through a criminal background check, and had no serious problems. They were allowed to stay 2 years at a time, not be deported, and legally work in America. More than 800,000 Dreamers came forward and received DACA protection, and let me tell you what they did. They turned around and became teachers, nurses, soldiers, small business owners, and 100 other things important to America. Listen to this: More than 200,000 DACA recipients are essential critical infrastructure workers. I didn't make that up; that number came out of President Trump's own Department of Homeland Security. Among these essential workers are 41,700 DACA recipients in the healthcare industry. These include doctors, intensive care nurses, paramedics, and respiratory therapists. Understand this: These are undocumented people in America, brought here as children, grew up here, went to school here, got an education, developed skills and training, and now we need them in this pandemic--41,700 of them. On September 5, 2017, President Trump repealed DACA. Hundreds of thousands of Dreamers faced losing their work permits and being deported from this country to places that many of them barely remember. Thank goodness the court stepped in to stop the President's action, but the President decided to appeal the case, and now, across the street in the Supreme Court, they are sitting on a case that will decide the fate of 800,000 of these DACAprotectees, many of them--thousands of them healthcare workers who are doing essential work every day. We can get a decision from the Court any day. Will we be better off if 41,000 of these DACA healthcare professionals are deported from this country in the midst of this pandemic? No sensible person believes we would be. If the Court rules in favor of President Trump, up to 200,000 essential workers in America would be sidelined in the middle of this national emergency. Many of them face deportation. I sent a letter to the President, with 37 of my Senate colleagues last month, urging him to extend the work authorization for DACA recipients to the end of the year. It is not too much to ask. They have lived in this country for years, and they passed a criminal background check. For goodness' sake, Mr. President, don't get tough on these people when we need them the most. But if you consider what the President said about immigrants over and over again, I know it is unlikely that he is going to have a moment of caring when it comes to their future, so Congress has to step in. The HEROES Act, which the House of Representatives passed last week and which we did not even consider this week in the U.S. Senate, includes a provision to automatically extend work authorizations for DACA recipients. This is what they are talking about when critics of that House action come to the floor and talk about all the benefits for undocumented people living in this country--the extension of DACA protection for thousands of essential workers in this country who are protected by DACA. They say: Oh, it sounds like they are opening the doors for illegal people to come in here and get royal treatment in America. The opposite is true. These are people who are risking their lives providing healthcare and essential services across America. The HEROES Act that passed in the House of Representatives simply said we are not going to deport them. What a radical suggestion, that we could use their help and we need their help through the rest of the year. We certainly do. Those who come and mock this provision by saying it is just a giveaway to illegal immigrants are really doing a disservice to these people and the sacrifice they are making. Ultimately, we need to give these Dreamers a chance to become citizens. I believe it now, and I have believed it for 20 years. It has been that long since I introduced the DREAM Act, a bipartisan bill, which would accomplish that. Last year, the Congress passed the Dream and Promise Act, which would have solved this problem based on the DREAM Act. The vote was 237 to 187 in the House. Leader McConnell has refused to even consider calling that measure for consideration in the Senate. And it isn't because we are overworked; just take a look at this empty Chamber. Over the years, I have come to the floor of the Senate more than 100 times to tell the stories of Dreamers. I want you to know who they are. These stories show what is at stake when we consider the future of DACA. Today, I want to tell you about Javier Quiroz Castro. Here is Javier dressed for work. He is the 121st Dreamer whose story I have told on the Senate floor. Javier's parents brought him to the United States when he was 3 years old. He grew up in Nashville, TN. His father worked in construction as a bricklayer. His mother cleaned homes and office buildings. As the oldest child and the best English speaker, Javier took care of his three younger siblings and helped his family navigate the challenges of being in America. Javier went to a private Christian college in Nashville, Lipscomb University. At Lipscomb, he discovered his love of nursing. He enrolled in the school of nursing and did his clinical training at Vanderbilt Medical Center. Javier graduated in May 2013 with his bachelor's in science of nursing. Javier received the Spirit of Nursing Award, which each year is given to only one nursing student who has best delivered quality care. Because President Obama established DACA in 2012, Javier had a chance. Before that, he had no chance to become a registered nurse in this country. But he had a chance, and he took advantage of it. Javier now lives in Houston, TX, and works at Houston Methodist Hospital. He is part of the team taking care of patients with COVID-19. This is what he wears to work. Javier wrote me a letter. Here is what he said: Thanks to DACA, I have been able to save a lot of lives. I have been able to be there with patients at their final moments of life. I have been able to take care of people of many different backgrounds, nationalities, races, socioeconomic levels, and cultures. This wouldn't be complete if I didn't introduce you to Javier's daughter. Take a look at this beautiful little girl. This is Isabelle Quiroz. A few weeks ago, she took her first steps. I bet you she is about the same age as my granddaughter, whose birthday is Friday of this week. She is about to take her first steps too. This beautiful little girl, Javier's little girl, her faith and future are at stake, too, in this debate in the U.S. Senate. I want to wish Isabelle a happy birthday tomorrow and my little granddaughter Jill a happy birthday on Friday. Javier's wife is also a nurse. She and Javier worry every day about not infecting their baby daughter as they go to work to save other people, but they still get up every day and go to work to care for their patients. I want to thank Javier Quiroz Castro for his service. He is indeed a healthcare hero. He is an immigrant healthcare hero. He puts himself and his family at risk in order to save American lives. He shouldn't have to worry about a decision across the street at the Supreme Court which would deport him back to a country he cannot even remember. We must do better. We are better than that as a country, to say to someone like Javier: Well, thank you for working so darn hard. Thank you for getting through nursing school with the highest grades. Thank you for your professionalism. Thank you for risking your life for America. But I am sorry, buddy, you are undocumented. Get out of the country. The bill that passed the House would protect him until the end of the year--until the end of the year. Yet Members come to the floor and mock this bill and say: Oh, you are trying to give things away to illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants like Javier? Get real. Get serious. Be human. We have to do better for Javier and the DACA recipients. They are counting on us--those of us in the Senate--to solve this crisis created by President Trump's action. As long as I am a Senator, I will continue to come to the floor of the Senate to advocate for Javier and the Dreamers. I have done it for a long time, but the job is not finished. It would be an American tragedy to deport this brave and talented nurse who is saving lives in Houston, TX, as we speak. We must ensure that Javier and hundreds of thousands of others in our essential workforce are not forced to stop working when we need them the most. Ultimately, we need to pass legislation that demonstrates who we are, what we believe in, and what our values are. What does it say about America if we say to Javier ``We don't need you''? We do. We need him and so many just like him who are performing essential services at this time of national emergency. I yield the floor.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. DURBIN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2538
| null | 680
|
formal
|
based
| null |
white supremacist
|
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, last week I came to the floor of the Senate to talk about how the tragic spread of the coronavirus around the world underscored the need for us to focus on the persistent challenge of China not playing by the rules. In the case of coronavirus, that was about China not telling the World Health Organization, not telling other countries, and not telling their own people what was happening in terms of the coronavirus and not taking steps to stop international travel early on. That wasn't playing by the WHO rules--the World Health Organization rules--and the result has been devastation. It has meant the spread of the virus. So much of that devastation wehave seen around the globe, in my view, could have been avoided had they played by the rules. Unfortunately, not playing by the rules applies to China in many other areas too. We have talked a lot about trade on the floor of the Senate, to be sure that there is a level playing field between China and the United States and making sure they play by the international trading rules. But here is another one where China and the Chinese Communist Party have not played by the rules, and that is with regard to obtaining our intellectual property, our innovation, and our research. In the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, we found not playing by the rules to be the case when we conducted a bipartisan, yearlong investigation into how China has used so-called talent recruitment programs--most notably its Thousand Talents Plan--to steal U.S. taxpayer-funded research to help fuel the rise to both the Chinese military and the Chinese economy over the past 20 years. It has been going on for two decades. You might ask, how has this happened? How could this be possible? This is how it happens. Every year, Federal grant-making agencies, like the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy and their National Labs, the National Science Foundation, and others, give out more than $150 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds for research. That is quite a bit of money. For the most part, this system works well. American taxpayers send the money to these Federal grant-making agencies here in Washington, which then give it out to the best researchers and the best research labs in the country. It has resulted in important new breakthroughs in science, technology, healthcare, energy, military equipment, and more. The NSF helped fund the creation of the internet. The NIH has funded research into very successful and innovative treatments for cancer and other diseases. So there is a lot of good stuff coming out of these research dollars. It has made America really the leader in the world on innovation and new ideas. For the most part, this Federal research funding has enjoyed broad bipartisan support here in the Congress. But guess what. It has also attracted interest from researchers around the world who want the chance to take a part in this cutting-edge research. That is good, too, as long as they play by the rules. What we have learned and we proved through our report is that this system is very vulnerable to theft by other countries. That is exactly what has happened in the case of China. China has made no secret that its goal is to surpass the United States as the world leader in scientific research. They have seen an opportunity to get ahead by exploiting this system of taxpayer-funded grants and the open and collaborative research enterprise that we have in this country. They have taken advantage of that. Specifically, the Chinese Government has systematically targeted the most promising U.S. researchers. So they find out somebody is doing some research on something interesting to them, and they systematically target that person. They have been paying these grant recipients to take their research--remember, research paid for by U.S. taxpayer dollars--and apply what they have learned here in labs over in China at Chinese universities affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party. The research they are taking over to China isn't just going toward academic purposes. That wouldn't be right, either, because our taxpayer dollars are going in to fund this research. They are then leapfrogging us by getting that research. But it is not just for academic purposes. Often, the research ends up going directly into things like advancing China's military, which has made great strides in the last two decades, advancing its technological growth, its economy, its manufacturing processes, and so on. A State Department witness at one of our Senate hearings on our report said this: ``The Chinese Communist Party has declared the Chinese university system to be on the front line of military-civilian fusion efforts for technology acquisition.'' So there is a clear link here between the research going to these Chinese university labs and that same research being used to allow China to effectively leapfrog us in terms of their military improvements and their economic growth. Part of the reason it has gone on so long, frankly, is because we have been asleep at the switch. We haven't been focused on this. We do have an open, collaborative research system in this country, and we haven't been effective at cracking down on this intellectual property theft. That is starting to change, and I am appreciative of that. It started to change, frankly, in the wake of our subcommittee investigation. The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations hearings also helped. Our report also helped. During one of our hearings, the FBI actually acknowledged what has been happening. This is what the FBI said: ``With our present-day knowledge of the threat from Chinese talent plans, we wish we had taken more rapid and comprehensive action in the past, and the time to make up for that is now.'' I appreciate the candor. I appreciate the fact that the FBI was willing to say: Now that we have learned all of this, we should have been acting on this a long time ago. We are going to do it now and make up for lost time. They have been much more aggressive. Since our hearing and detailed report last November, we have seen a number of high-profile arrests of academics in this country who have consistently hidden their participation in China's Thousand Talents program and have taken research over to China. You may remember hearing about this issue earlier this week when a Harvard professor named Dr. Charles Lieber, who was the chair of Harvard University's chemistry department, was accused of secretly taking money from China and sharing his U.S. taxpayer-funded research with the Chinese Government. It was really a shocking example of this. But he is not the only case. In March, we received news of another arrest of a professor who used to work at West Virginia University who participated in Thousand Talents. In this case, the Justice Department found that he had convinced his employer--a U.S. public university--to give him paid parental leave funded by American taxpayers while he went to China to work at a university there to continue his work on specializing molecular reactions used in coal conversion technologies. This is from West Virginia University. These two cases would be bad enough on their own, but since the start of this month, we have actually had three more cases announced by the Department of Justice and the FBI in relation to this Thousand Talents program. I commend the DOJ and the FBI for their work to continue to crack down on this program and to go after these problems, but they need better tools to do it. About 2 weeks ago, a former Emory University professor pled guilty to falsifying his tax returns to conceal his work for the Chinese Government. The professor worked simultaneously and secretly for 6 years for both Emory University and overseas for Chinese universities affiliated with the Communist Party of China, conducting similar research projects at both institutions. Despite this clear conflict of interest, he failed to report any of his at least $500,000 in foreign income on his Federal tax returns. That very same day, a professor at the University of Arkansas was arrested on charges of wire fraud for allegedly failing to disclose his ties to the Chinese Government, despite being required to do so as a grant recipient of money from NASA--NASA. Just this past week, we found out that this problem had reached my home State of Ohio when the Department of Justice announced the arrest of a researcher previously affiliated with the world-renowned Cleveland Clinic. This researcher had received more than $3.6 million in taxpayer-funded grants from the National Institutions of Health--again, taxpayer dollars. To secure that grant, he is accused of lying to hide the fact that he was given a deanship at the university in Wuhan, China. He is also accused of lying about his Chinese Government-funded research directly overlapping with his NIH-funded research. According to the criminal complaint, he received $3 million in funding from China to run a shadow lab in Wuhan to replicate his Cleveland Clinic research, along with free travel and free lodging funded by the Chinese Government. It says he even admittedthat he hand-carried samples of biological material from Cleveland, OH, to Wuhan. Those samples are still stored, by the way, in China. It also states that he did not disclose that one of his Chinese grants required that he be in Wuhan for 10 months of the year at the same time he was also employed full time at the Cleveland Clinic, again, working on NIH-funded research. I commend the Cleveland Clinic for working with the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office to ensure that we were able to stop this from happening. As a Thousand Talents member, the criminal complaint also alleges that this individual recruited around 40 to 50 other U.S.-based researchers for his Chinese university by hosting events at Harvard and other schools in the United States. This is a big deal, and it needs to stop. I commend the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, John Demers, for his work on this and other cases and also U.S. Attorney Justin Herdman of the Northern District of Ohio, FBI Special Agent in Charge Eric Smith, and all the members of their team for their work on this Cleveland Clinic case. Again, these cases are all positive steps in the right direction, but the problem, as you might notice, is that none of these criminal charges and arrests were actually based on participating in a Thousand Talents program or even hiding that from the U.S. Government research institutions or universities. The criminal charges and arrests were all for other crimes, like perjury, wire fraud, and tax evasion. That is because, amazingly, failing to disclose on a grant application to receive U.S.-taxpayer funds that you are receiving compensation--clear conflict of interest--from a foreign government and giving them your research is not currently a crime. That needs to change. One example: The Emory University professor, according to the law, only committed tax fraud, while the Arkansas professor only committed wire fraud. The fact that these are technically only financial crimes show that we are still just nibbling around the edges of this problem. It is time for us to get at the underlying flaw in our research enterprise of talent programs enticing researchers here in the United States to steal for other countries. We are going to need targeted legislation that will take direct action against this practice, and that is exactly what we have done. Along with a group of colleagues, including Democrat Tom Carper, the ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, we are introducing the Safeguarding American Innovation Act, which is going to build on the recommendations made in our PSI report and address some of these root causes of the ongoing IP theft that is currently going on. First and foremost, our bill is going to help the Department of Justice go after the Thousand Talents participants by allowing DOJ to hold Federal grant recipients accountable for failing to disclose their foreign ties on Federal grant applications. This isn't just about more arrests, either. We should all agree that transparency and honesty in grant applications are critical to the integrity of U.S. research, and this provision will help to promote those principles. Our bill makes other important changes, as well, based on the recommendations in our report. It requires the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, to streamline and coordinate grant-making between these Federal agencies, so there is needed accountability and transparency when it comes to tracking the billions of dollars of taxpayer funds in grant money that is being distributed. We have worked closely with NSF, NIH, Department of Energy, and others on this important piece of legislation. They agree it is important. It allows the State Department to deny visas to foreign researchers who are seeking to access sensitive U.S. research when there is a threat to our economic or our national security. This may surprise you, but they can't do that now. Career Foreign Service officers and employees of the State Department have begged us for that authority. Our bill also requires research institutions to have safeguards in place to prohibit unauthorized access to sensitive research because we found that to be a serious problem. And our bill ensures transparency by requiring universities to report any foreign gift of $50,000 or more, and it empowers the Department of Education to fine universities that repeatedly fail to disclose these gifts. Right now, our No. 1 priority is and should be solving the coronavirus crisis. I get that. By the way, the FBI sent a notice around last week to universities and research institutions saying: Watch out because there are actually Chinese hackers trying to get your research on coronavirus. It just happened last week. I have to tell you that in the context of this crisis, we have to reevaluate how we do business with China. We have to look at this with fresh eyes and realize that in many areas China has not been playing by the same set of rules as the rest of the world. We talked about that earlier, with regard to trade and with regard to reporting on the coronavirus. I think in a fair and straightforward manner, we have to lead in insisting that there be a level playing field, whether it is the WHO or whether it is transparency with coronavirus or trade policy or how research is acquired. My hope is that our PSI report and the legislation we are introducing will let us reset the way we conduct our research. Our goal should be to continue to reward those who come to our shores and discover new breakthroughs in science and technology. We want that. We are very proud of the fact that we are the most innovative country in the world and we are known for our research enterprise. We want to continue that, but we want to do it in a smart way. We want to be sure that we are keeping China and other nations and competitors from stealing that research for its own purposes. I know we can achieve that balance. Our legislation does that. I look forward to getting support from both sides of the aisle because this is a problem we should all be concerned about. I yield the floor.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. PORTMAN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2539
| null | 681
|
formal
|
Cleveland
| null |
racist
|
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, last week I came to the floor of the Senate to talk about how the tragic spread of the coronavirus around the world underscored the need for us to focus on the persistent challenge of China not playing by the rules. In the case of coronavirus, that was about China not telling the World Health Organization, not telling other countries, and not telling their own people what was happening in terms of the coronavirus and not taking steps to stop international travel early on. That wasn't playing by the WHO rules--the World Health Organization rules--and the result has been devastation. It has meant the spread of the virus. So much of that devastation wehave seen around the globe, in my view, could have been avoided had they played by the rules. Unfortunately, not playing by the rules applies to China in many other areas too. We have talked a lot about trade on the floor of the Senate, to be sure that there is a level playing field between China and the United States and making sure they play by the international trading rules. But here is another one where China and the Chinese Communist Party have not played by the rules, and that is with regard to obtaining our intellectual property, our innovation, and our research. In the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, we found not playing by the rules to be the case when we conducted a bipartisan, yearlong investigation into how China has used so-called talent recruitment programs--most notably its Thousand Talents Plan--to steal U.S. taxpayer-funded research to help fuel the rise to both the Chinese military and the Chinese economy over the past 20 years. It has been going on for two decades. You might ask, how has this happened? How could this be possible? This is how it happens. Every year, Federal grant-making agencies, like the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy and their National Labs, the National Science Foundation, and others, give out more than $150 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds for research. That is quite a bit of money. For the most part, this system works well. American taxpayers send the money to these Federal grant-making agencies here in Washington, which then give it out to the best researchers and the best research labs in the country. It has resulted in important new breakthroughs in science, technology, healthcare, energy, military equipment, and more. The NSF helped fund the creation of the internet. The NIH has funded research into very successful and innovative treatments for cancer and other diseases. So there is a lot of good stuff coming out of these research dollars. It has made America really the leader in the world on innovation and new ideas. For the most part, this Federal research funding has enjoyed broad bipartisan support here in the Congress. But guess what. It has also attracted interest from researchers around the world who want the chance to take a part in this cutting-edge research. That is good, too, as long as they play by the rules. What we have learned and we proved through our report is that this system is very vulnerable to theft by other countries. That is exactly what has happened in the case of China. China has made no secret that its goal is to surpass the United States as the world leader in scientific research. They have seen an opportunity to get ahead by exploiting this system of taxpayer-funded grants and the open and collaborative research enterprise that we have in this country. They have taken advantage of that. Specifically, the Chinese Government has systematically targeted the most promising U.S. researchers. So they find out somebody is doing some research on something interesting to them, and they systematically target that person. They have been paying these grant recipients to take their research--remember, research paid for by U.S. taxpayer dollars--and apply what they have learned here in labs over in China at Chinese universities affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party. The research they are taking over to China isn't just going toward academic purposes. That wouldn't be right, either, because our taxpayer dollars are going in to fund this research. They are then leapfrogging us by getting that research. But it is not just for academic purposes. Often, the research ends up going directly into things like advancing China's military, which has made great strides in the last two decades, advancing its technological growth, its economy, its manufacturing processes, and so on. A State Department witness at one of our Senate hearings on our report said this: ``The Chinese Communist Party has declared the Chinese university system to be on the front line of military-civilian fusion efforts for technology acquisition.'' So there is a clear link here between the research going to these Chinese university labs and that same research being used to allow China to effectively leapfrog us in terms of their military improvements and their economic growth. Part of the reason it has gone on so long, frankly, is because we have been asleep at the switch. We haven't been focused on this. We do have an open, collaborative research system in this country, and we haven't been effective at cracking down on this intellectual property theft. That is starting to change, and I am appreciative of that. It started to change, frankly, in the wake of our subcommittee investigation. The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations hearings also helped. Our report also helped. During one of our hearings, the FBI actually acknowledged what has been happening. This is what the FBI said: ``With our present-day knowledge of the threat from Chinese talent plans, we wish we had taken more rapid and comprehensive action in the past, and the time to make up for that is now.'' I appreciate the candor. I appreciate the fact that the FBI was willing to say: Now that we have learned all of this, we should have been acting on this a long time ago. We are going to do it now and make up for lost time. They have been much more aggressive. Since our hearing and detailed report last November, we have seen a number of high-profile arrests of academics in this country who have consistently hidden their participation in China's Thousand Talents program and have taken research over to China. You may remember hearing about this issue earlier this week when a Harvard professor named Dr. Charles Lieber, who was the chair of Harvard University's chemistry department, was accused of secretly taking money from China and sharing his U.S. taxpayer-funded research with the Chinese Government. It was really a shocking example of this. But he is not the only case. In March, we received news of another arrest of a professor who used to work at West Virginia University who participated in Thousand Talents. In this case, the Justice Department found that he had convinced his employer--a U.S. public university--to give him paid parental leave funded by American taxpayers while he went to China to work at a university there to continue his work on specializing molecular reactions used in coal conversion technologies. This is from West Virginia University. These two cases would be bad enough on their own, but since the start of this month, we have actually had three more cases announced by the Department of Justice and the FBI in relation to this Thousand Talents program. I commend the DOJ and the FBI for their work to continue to crack down on this program and to go after these problems, but they need better tools to do it. About 2 weeks ago, a former Emory University professor pled guilty to falsifying his tax returns to conceal his work for the Chinese Government. The professor worked simultaneously and secretly for 6 years for both Emory University and overseas for Chinese universities affiliated with the Communist Party of China, conducting similar research projects at both institutions. Despite this clear conflict of interest, he failed to report any of his at least $500,000 in foreign income on his Federal tax returns. That very same day, a professor at the University of Arkansas was arrested on charges of wire fraud for allegedly failing to disclose his ties to the Chinese Government, despite being required to do so as a grant recipient of money from NASA--NASA. Just this past week, we found out that this problem had reached my home State of Ohio when the Department of Justice announced the arrest of a researcher previously affiliated with the world-renowned Cleveland Clinic. This researcher had received more than $3.6 million in taxpayer-funded grants from the National Institutions of Health--again, taxpayer dollars. To secure that grant, he is accused of lying to hide the fact that he was given a deanship at the university in Wuhan, China. He is also accused of lying about his Chinese Government-funded research directly overlapping with his NIH-funded research. According to the criminal complaint, he received $3 million in funding from China to run a shadow lab in Wuhan to replicate his Cleveland Clinic research, along with free travel and free lodging funded by the Chinese Government. It says he even admittedthat he hand-carried samples of biological material from Cleveland, OH, to Wuhan. Those samples are still stored, by the way, in China. It also states that he did not disclose that one of his Chinese grants required that he be in Wuhan for 10 months of the year at the same time he was also employed full time at the Cleveland Clinic, again, working on NIH-funded research. I commend the Cleveland Clinic for working with the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office to ensure that we were able to stop this from happening. As a Thousand Talents member, the criminal complaint also alleges that this individual recruited around 40 to 50 other U.S.-based researchers for his Chinese university by hosting events at Harvard and other schools in the United States. This is a big deal, and it needs to stop. I commend the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, John Demers, for his work on this and other cases and also U.S. Attorney Justin Herdman of the Northern District of Ohio, FBI Special Agent in Charge Eric Smith, and all the members of their team for their work on this Cleveland Clinic case. Again, these cases are all positive steps in the right direction, but the problem, as you might notice, is that none of these criminal charges and arrests were actually based on participating in a Thousand Talents program or even hiding that from the U.S. Government research institutions or universities. The criminal charges and arrests were all for other crimes, like perjury, wire fraud, and tax evasion. That is because, amazingly, failing to disclose on a grant application to receive U.S.-taxpayer funds that you are receiving compensation--clear conflict of interest--from a foreign government and giving them your research is not currently a crime. That needs to change. One example: The Emory University professor, according to the law, only committed tax fraud, while the Arkansas professor only committed wire fraud. The fact that these are technically only financial crimes show that we are still just nibbling around the edges of this problem. It is time for us to get at the underlying flaw in our research enterprise of talent programs enticing researchers here in the United States to steal for other countries. We are going to need targeted legislation that will take direct action against this practice, and that is exactly what we have done. Along with a group of colleagues, including Democrat Tom Carper, the ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, we are introducing the Safeguarding American Innovation Act, which is going to build on the recommendations made in our PSI report and address some of these root causes of the ongoing IP theft that is currently going on. First and foremost, our bill is going to help the Department of Justice go after the Thousand Talents participants by allowing DOJ to hold Federal grant recipients accountable for failing to disclose their foreign ties on Federal grant applications. This isn't just about more arrests, either. We should all agree that transparency and honesty in grant applications are critical to the integrity of U.S. research, and this provision will help to promote those principles. Our bill makes other important changes, as well, based on the recommendations in our report. It requires the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, to streamline and coordinate grant-making between these Federal agencies, so there is needed accountability and transparency when it comes to tracking the billions of dollars of taxpayer funds in grant money that is being distributed. We have worked closely with NSF, NIH, Department of Energy, and others on this important piece of legislation. They agree it is important. It allows the State Department to deny visas to foreign researchers who are seeking to access sensitive U.S. research when there is a threat to our economic or our national security. This may surprise you, but they can't do that now. Career Foreign Service officers and employees of the State Department have begged us for that authority. Our bill also requires research institutions to have safeguards in place to prohibit unauthorized access to sensitive research because we found that to be a serious problem. And our bill ensures transparency by requiring universities to report any foreign gift of $50,000 or more, and it empowers the Department of Education to fine universities that repeatedly fail to disclose these gifts. Right now, our No. 1 priority is and should be solving the coronavirus crisis. I get that. By the way, the FBI sent a notice around last week to universities and research institutions saying: Watch out because there are actually Chinese hackers trying to get your research on coronavirus. It just happened last week. I have to tell you that in the context of this crisis, we have to reevaluate how we do business with China. We have to look at this with fresh eyes and realize that in many areas China has not been playing by the same set of rules as the rest of the world. We talked about that earlier, with regard to trade and with regard to reporting on the coronavirus. I think in a fair and straightforward manner, we have to lead in insisting that there be a level playing field, whether it is the WHO or whether it is transparency with coronavirus or trade policy or how research is acquired. My hope is that our PSI report and the legislation we are introducing will let us reset the way we conduct our research. Our goal should be to continue to reward those who come to our shores and discover new breakthroughs in science and technology. We want that. We are very proud of the fact that we are the most innovative country in the world and we are known for our research enterprise. We want to continue that, but we want to do it in a smart way. We want to be sure that we are keeping China and other nations and competitors from stealing that research for its own purposes. I know we can achieve that balance. Our legislation does that. I look forward to getting support from both sides of the aisle because this is a problem we should all be concerned about. I yield the floor.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. PORTMAN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2539
| null | 682
|
formal
|
Federal Reserve
| null |
antisemitic
|
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes about the Coronavirus Relief Fund Flexibility for State and Local Government Act. Before I get to my motion, I just want to make a couple of points. Point 1, as you know, we have passed four bills dealing with the pool of misery America and the world find themselves in with respect to the coronavirus. We have spent a breathtaking amount of money. I never imagined that I would vote for bills of the magnitude that I have voted for, but we all did what we had to do. If you add up the four bills, we have spent $3 trillion so far. I have expressed it this way before, but I am going to keep doing it because it is just a breathtaking amount of money: $3 trillion is 3-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0 taxpayer dollars. We may have to spend another $3 trillion As you know, we set up some facilities at the Federal Reserve. They are called 13(3) facilities, through which the Federal Reserve is loaning money to American businesses to try to keep them afloat after the government shut down the American economy. The Federal Reserve cannot lose money. I am not suggesting that all $3 trillion that the Federal Reserve ends up loaning out will remain unpaid. I hope not. But for the portion that does go into default, we are going to have to appropriate money to cover those losses. We already appropriated $450 billion, but if the losses go higher, we have to cover them. We have spent $3 trillion for certain and, potentially, we are going to have to spend another $3 trillion. It is a staggering amount of money. The entire U.S. economy, the greatest economy in all of human history, to put things in context, is $21 trillion a year. That is how much we produce a year if you add up all the goods and services that we, as Americans, produce. As you know, Speaker Pelosi has introduced yet another bill, a fifth bill. The House has passed it. It was on a party-line vote. I think one Republican voted for the bill. A number of Democrats voted against it. It was a closevote, but the House passed it at Speaker Pelosi's suggestion. It would cost another $3 trillion. I have to tell you, when I first heard about the bill and after I looked at the bill, I was very, very surprised. I was shocked. I don't mean to overstate my case. I didn't faint or anything, but maybe it would be fair to say that my emotions were a cross between surprise and shocked. It is not a coronavirus bill. It is a ``remake American society'' bill. For one thing, it would cost another $3 trillion. I am not going to recite the zeros again, but $3 trillion is $3,000 billion on top of the money we have already spent. It really would remake American society. The Speaker included provisions about immigration laws. A lot of taxpayer money would be given to people who are in our country illegally. It would let Federal prisoners go free. It would expand the Affordable Care Act, which even President Obama calls Obamacare. I remember when ObamaCare passed. We were promised--President Obama promised--that if you pass this bill, health insurance will be cheaper, and it will be more accessible, and your life will be better. None of those things have any resemblance to reality. Of course, I could go on about Speaker Pelosi's legislation. It is not going to pass the Senate. I suspect she knows that. What is going to happen next in this opera? Well, if past is prologue, the majority leader and the minority leader in the Senate and the majority leader in the House and the Speaker and Secretary Mnuchin--all of whom I have respect for--will go off and they will negotiate a deal, and then they will come back and they will present it to the Senate and the House. I could be wrong, of course. I am in labor, not management. I could be wrong, of course, but the bill will not go through regular order. It will never be considered by committee. We probably will not be allowed to amend the bill because a deal has been made. It will be ``take it or leave it.'' Now, if past is prologue, given the circumstances, people will moan and groan, but they will vote for the bill, whether they know what is in it or not, whether they were included in the discussions or not. That is what happened with the CARES Act. I am not sure that is going to happen this time. I am not sure that this time the non-negotiating Senators and House Members are going to moo and follow their leaders into the chute like cows. I think this time might be different. I am not saying that is a good or bad thing. It depends on what the deal is. I am raising the possibility. Speaker Pelosi could eliminate every other word in her bill and cut the price tag in half and I still don't think that the Republicans of the Senate are going to support it. If she takes out all the goodies for the leftwing--the left leftwing--of her party--I don't use that in a pejorative sense. If she takes out all the goodies that remake Western civilization in her bill, I am not sure that the leftwing of her party in the House is going to vote for it. What I am saying is, for better or worse, I am not sure there is going to be a fifth bill. That is point 2. Point 3, let me go back to our CARES Act. In our CARES Act, we spent an enormous amount of money to help States and to help local governments. We gave $150 billion directly to States and cities to combat the coronavirus. We appropriated extra money on top of that for public schools. We appropriated extra money on top of that $150 billion for universities. We appropriated extra money on top of all that for our hospitals, many of which are public. We appropriated extra money on top of all of that to give States extra Medicaid money. My State received $1.8 billion for State and local government, $300 million for public schools, $200 million for universities, over $600 million and climbing for our hospitals, and extra Medicaid money. It is about $3.5 billion in Louisiana. That is a lot of money along the bayou. I want to dissuade people who say we haven't done anything for State and local government. We have. We have done a lot. That is point 3. Point 4, I am not guaranteeing it is my final point, but I intend it to be. Point 4, the $1.8 billion that we gave State and local government has restrictions. It can only be spent combating the coronavirus. If you don't spend it combating the coronavirus, you are supposed to give it back. That will happen when donkeys fly. We will never see that money again. It is spent, for better or worse. And I voted for the bill. I don't think any fairminded person can deny the fact--and I think it is a fact--that as a result of the coronavirus, just as the Federal Government has had and will have revenue shortfalls, so will State governments and so will cities. People haven't been paying sales tax because they haven't been buying stuff. People haven't been paying income tax at the State and local levels because they haven't been working. I wish that weren't the case, but it is a fact. My bill would say to those States and cities: You can use the $1.8 billion to offset revenue shortfalls. Some of my colleagues for whom I have great respect--one of them is here tonight, Senator Rick Scott, and I mean that. He was a heck of a Governor. He is a heck of a Senator. They have argued that we shouldn't give that flexibility because some States are mismanaged. I agree with that. I do. If I were King for a day and had a magic wand, I would take all of the many measures that then-Governor Scott implemented in Florida and say we need to do these in every State. We can debate whether that would violate federalism, but I watched him carefully as Governor. He was a great Governor. When he inherited Florida, it was a mess, and he cleaned it up. So when he and others make the point that we shouldn't bail out mismanaged States, I agree with that. But I can't divorce myself from the fact that every State--mismanaged, well managed, medium managed, poorly managed--has revenue losses as a result of the coronavirus. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't cut their budgets. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't scrub their budgets. We ought to do it at the Federal level. That will happen, too, when donkeys fly. We expect our friends at the State level and at the local level to scrub their budgets, but I still think they are going to come up short. I worry that if they do that and they have to start laying off first responders, it is going to hurt the recovery. Now, not everybody agrees with what I have just said, and not everybody agrees with Senator Scott's position. Reasonable people disagree sometimes. But this much I also know: Whether you agree or disagree for the next 6 months, Senator Scott is not going to convince, for example, Governor Cuomo of New York to adopt his position. I am pretty confident of that. And over the next 6 months, Governor Cuomo is not going to convince--I know this--Senator Scott to adopt his position. In the meantime, we have a problem to deal with. I will make one final point. Some of my colleagues have said: Kennedy, we don't need your bill because the Treasury Department through the Secretary of Treasury has issued directives saying that the money can be used for first responders. Now, look, I am a big Secretary Mnuchin fan. I think he has been a rockstar through this process, but I don't understand this concept of a directive. I know what a rule is. I know what a regulation is. I know what due process is. I know what the Administrative Procedure Act is, and I don't think a directive fits into those categories. I also know that a Secretary of a department, no matter how bright and capable and talented he may be, cannot change an act of Congress, and the CARES Act doesn't say a dadgum thing about using this money for first responders. If I am a Governor, I am going to worry that, if I do spend the money without an act of Congress, that someday: Knock, knock, knock on my door. Hello? I am from the government. In fact, I am an inspector general, and I want to see your books, and I have looked at your books, and I want you to give that money back. It has happened before. The only way to give our friends in State and local government security is for us to pass law, not for the bureaucracy to tell us what we did. We know what we did. Look, I know that some on my side of the aisle disagree with me, and I have learned a little bit in 3\1/2\ years. Ihave learned two things mostly. I learned this the first week: Everybody up here who smiles at you is not your friend. And, No. 2, I have learned up here you have got to watch what people do, not what they say. This bill is not coming to the floor of the U.S. Senate anytime soon. I know that. I get it. I am just saying it should. I am saying it if it does--if it does--it will get 90 votes. I am saying, finally, that these revenue losses are real. Managed, mismanaged--we can debate that forever. They are real, and we have got to get this economy up and going again. If States are laying off teachers and first responders and policemen and firemen and people at public hospitals or raising taxes, it is going to be that much harder. That is why we ought to pass my bill. It doesn't spend a single, solitary new penny--no new money. It just gives Governors and mayors a little more flexibility. For that reason, I have to read this long script. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Committee on Appropriations be discharged from further consideration of S. 3608 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 hours of debate, equally divided between the proponents and the opponents of the bill, and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Kennedy substitute amendment No. 1581 be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time, and that the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with a 60 affirmative vote threshold for passage with no intervening action or debate; finally, if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. KENNEDY
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2541
| null | 683
|
formal
|
the Fed
| null |
antisemitic
|
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes about the Coronavirus Relief Fund Flexibility for State and Local Government Act. Before I get to my motion, I just want to make a couple of points. Point 1, as you know, we have passed four bills dealing with the pool of misery America and the world find themselves in with respect to the coronavirus. We have spent a breathtaking amount of money. I never imagined that I would vote for bills of the magnitude that I have voted for, but we all did what we had to do. If you add up the four bills, we have spent $3 trillion so far. I have expressed it this way before, but I am going to keep doing it because it is just a breathtaking amount of money: $3 trillion is 3-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0 taxpayer dollars. We may have to spend another $3 trillion As you know, we set up some facilities at the Federal Reserve. They are called 13(3) facilities, through which the Federal Reserve is loaning money to American businesses to try to keep them afloat after the government shut down the American economy. The Federal Reserve cannot lose money. I am not suggesting that all $3 trillion that the Federal Reserve ends up loaning out will remain unpaid. I hope not. But for the portion that does go into default, we are going to have to appropriate money to cover those losses. We already appropriated $450 billion, but if the losses go higher, we have to cover them. We have spent $3 trillion for certain and, potentially, we are going to have to spend another $3 trillion. It is a staggering amount of money. The entire U.S. economy, the greatest economy in all of human history, to put things in context, is $21 trillion a year. That is how much we produce a year if you add up all the goods and services that we, as Americans, produce. As you know, Speaker Pelosi has introduced yet another bill, a fifth bill. The House has passed it. It was on a party-line vote. I think one Republican voted for the bill. A number of Democrats voted against it. It was a closevote, but the House passed it at Speaker Pelosi's suggestion. It would cost another $3 trillion. I have to tell you, when I first heard about the bill and after I looked at the bill, I was very, very surprised. I was shocked. I don't mean to overstate my case. I didn't faint or anything, but maybe it would be fair to say that my emotions were a cross between surprise and shocked. It is not a coronavirus bill. It is a ``remake American society'' bill. For one thing, it would cost another $3 trillion. I am not going to recite the zeros again, but $3 trillion is $3,000 billion on top of the money we have already spent. It really would remake American society. The Speaker included provisions about immigration laws. A lot of taxpayer money would be given to people who are in our country illegally. It would let Federal prisoners go free. It would expand the Affordable Care Act, which even President Obama calls Obamacare. I remember when ObamaCare passed. We were promised--President Obama promised--that if you pass this bill, health insurance will be cheaper, and it will be more accessible, and your life will be better. None of those things have any resemblance to reality. Of course, I could go on about Speaker Pelosi's legislation. It is not going to pass the Senate. I suspect she knows that. What is going to happen next in this opera? Well, if past is prologue, the majority leader and the minority leader in the Senate and the majority leader in the House and the Speaker and Secretary Mnuchin--all of whom I have respect for--will go off and they will negotiate a deal, and then they will come back and they will present it to the Senate and the House. I could be wrong, of course. I am in labor, not management. I could be wrong, of course, but the bill will not go through regular order. It will never be considered by committee. We probably will not be allowed to amend the bill because a deal has been made. It will be ``take it or leave it.'' Now, if past is prologue, given the circumstances, people will moan and groan, but they will vote for the bill, whether they know what is in it or not, whether they were included in the discussions or not. That is what happened with the CARES Act. I am not sure that is going to happen this time. I am not sure that this time the non-negotiating Senators and House Members are going to moo and follow their leaders into the chute like cows. I think this time might be different. I am not saying that is a good or bad thing. It depends on what the deal is. I am raising the possibility. Speaker Pelosi could eliminate every other word in her bill and cut the price tag in half and I still don't think that the Republicans of the Senate are going to support it. If she takes out all the goodies for the leftwing--the left leftwing--of her party--I don't use that in a pejorative sense. If she takes out all the goodies that remake Western civilization in her bill, I am not sure that the leftwing of her party in the House is going to vote for it. What I am saying is, for better or worse, I am not sure there is going to be a fifth bill. That is point 2. Point 3, let me go back to our CARES Act. In our CARES Act, we spent an enormous amount of money to help States and to help local governments. We gave $150 billion directly to States and cities to combat the coronavirus. We appropriated extra money on top of that for public schools. We appropriated extra money on top of that $150 billion for universities. We appropriated extra money on top of all that for our hospitals, many of which are public. We appropriated extra money on top of all of that to give States extra Medicaid money. My State received $1.8 billion for State and local government, $300 million for public schools, $200 million for universities, over $600 million and climbing for our hospitals, and extra Medicaid money. It is about $3.5 billion in Louisiana. That is a lot of money along the bayou. I want to dissuade people who say we haven't done anything for State and local government. We have. We have done a lot. That is point 3. Point 4, I am not guaranteeing it is my final point, but I intend it to be. Point 4, the $1.8 billion that we gave State and local government has restrictions. It can only be spent combating the coronavirus. If you don't spend it combating the coronavirus, you are supposed to give it back. That will happen when donkeys fly. We will never see that money again. It is spent, for better or worse. And I voted for the bill. I don't think any fairminded person can deny the fact--and I think it is a fact--that as a result of the coronavirus, just as the Federal Government has had and will have revenue shortfalls, so will State governments and so will cities. People haven't been paying sales tax because they haven't been buying stuff. People haven't been paying income tax at the State and local levels because they haven't been working. I wish that weren't the case, but it is a fact. My bill would say to those States and cities: You can use the $1.8 billion to offset revenue shortfalls. Some of my colleagues for whom I have great respect--one of them is here tonight, Senator Rick Scott, and I mean that. He was a heck of a Governor. He is a heck of a Senator. They have argued that we shouldn't give that flexibility because some States are mismanaged. I agree with that. I do. If I were King for a day and had a magic wand, I would take all of the many measures that then-Governor Scott implemented in Florida and say we need to do these in every State. We can debate whether that would violate federalism, but I watched him carefully as Governor. He was a great Governor. When he inherited Florida, it was a mess, and he cleaned it up. So when he and others make the point that we shouldn't bail out mismanaged States, I agree with that. But I can't divorce myself from the fact that every State--mismanaged, well managed, medium managed, poorly managed--has revenue losses as a result of the coronavirus. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't cut their budgets. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't scrub their budgets. We ought to do it at the Federal level. That will happen, too, when donkeys fly. We expect our friends at the State level and at the local level to scrub their budgets, but I still think they are going to come up short. I worry that if they do that and they have to start laying off first responders, it is going to hurt the recovery. Now, not everybody agrees with what I have just said, and not everybody agrees with Senator Scott's position. Reasonable people disagree sometimes. But this much I also know: Whether you agree or disagree for the next 6 months, Senator Scott is not going to convince, for example, Governor Cuomo of New York to adopt his position. I am pretty confident of that. And over the next 6 months, Governor Cuomo is not going to convince--I know this--Senator Scott to adopt his position. In the meantime, we have a problem to deal with. I will make one final point. Some of my colleagues have said: Kennedy, we don't need your bill because the Treasury Department through the Secretary of Treasury has issued directives saying that the money can be used for first responders. Now, look, I am a big Secretary Mnuchin fan. I think he has been a rockstar through this process, but I don't understand this concept of a directive. I know what a rule is. I know what a regulation is. I know what due process is. I know what the Administrative Procedure Act is, and I don't think a directive fits into those categories. I also know that a Secretary of a department, no matter how bright and capable and talented he may be, cannot change an act of Congress, and the CARES Act doesn't say a dadgum thing about using this money for first responders. If I am a Governor, I am going to worry that, if I do spend the money without an act of Congress, that someday: Knock, knock, knock on my door. Hello? I am from the government. In fact, I am an inspector general, and I want to see your books, and I have looked at your books, and I want you to give that money back. It has happened before. The only way to give our friends in State and local government security is for us to pass law, not for the bureaucracy to tell us what we did. We know what we did. Look, I know that some on my side of the aisle disagree with me, and I have learned a little bit in 3\1/2\ years. Ihave learned two things mostly. I learned this the first week: Everybody up here who smiles at you is not your friend. And, No. 2, I have learned up here you have got to watch what people do, not what they say. This bill is not coming to the floor of the U.S. Senate anytime soon. I know that. I get it. I am just saying it should. I am saying it if it does--if it does--it will get 90 votes. I am saying, finally, that these revenue losses are real. Managed, mismanaged--we can debate that forever. They are real, and we have got to get this economy up and going again. If States are laying off teachers and first responders and policemen and firemen and people at public hospitals or raising taxes, it is going to be that much harder. That is why we ought to pass my bill. It doesn't spend a single, solitary new penny--no new money. It just gives Governors and mayors a little more flexibility. For that reason, I have to read this long script. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Committee on Appropriations be discharged from further consideration of S. 3608 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 hours of debate, equally divided between the proponents and the opponents of the bill, and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Kennedy substitute amendment No. 1581 be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time, and that the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with a 60 affirmative vote threshold for passage with no intervening action or debate; finally, if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. KENNEDY
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2541
| null | 684
|
formal
|
single
| null |
homophobic
|
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes about the Coronavirus Relief Fund Flexibility for State and Local Government Act. Before I get to my motion, I just want to make a couple of points. Point 1, as you know, we have passed four bills dealing with the pool of misery America and the world find themselves in with respect to the coronavirus. We have spent a breathtaking amount of money. I never imagined that I would vote for bills of the magnitude that I have voted for, but we all did what we had to do. If you add up the four bills, we have spent $3 trillion so far. I have expressed it this way before, but I am going to keep doing it because it is just a breathtaking amount of money: $3 trillion is 3-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0 taxpayer dollars. We may have to spend another $3 trillion As you know, we set up some facilities at the Federal Reserve. They are called 13(3) facilities, through which the Federal Reserve is loaning money to American businesses to try to keep them afloat after the government shut down the American economy. The Federal Reserve cannot lose money. I am not suggesting that all $3 trillion that the Federal Reserve ends up loaning out will remain unpaid. I hope not. But for the portion that does go into default, we are going to have to appropriate money to cover those losses. We already appropriated $450 billion, but if the losses go higher, we have to cover them. We have spent $3 trillion for certain and, potentially, we are going to have to spend another $3 trillion. It is a staggering amount of money. The entire U.S. economy, the greatest economy in all of human history, to put things in context, is $21 trillion a year. That is how much we produce a year if you add up all the goods and services that we, as Americans, produce. As you know, Speaker Pelosi has introduced yet another bill, a fifth bill. The House has passed it. It was on a party-line vote. I think one Republican voted for the bill. A number of Democrats voted against it. It was a closevote, but the House passed it at Speaker Pelosi's suggestion. It would cost another $3 trillion. I have to tell you, when I first heard about the bill and after I looked at the bill, I was very, very surprised. I was shocked. I don't mean to overstate my case. I didn't faint or anything, but maybe it would be fair to say that my emotions were a cross between surprise and shocked. It is not a coronavirus bill. It is a ``remake American society'' bill. For one thing, it would cost another $3 trillion. I am not going to recite the zeros again, but $3 trillion is $3,000 billion on top of the money we have already spent. It really would remake American society. The Speaker included provisions about immigration laws. A lot of taxpayer money would be given to people who are in our country illegally. It would let Federal prisoners go free. It would expand the Affordable Care Act, which even President Obama calls Obamacare. I remember when ObamaCare passed. We were promised--President Obama promised--that if you pass this bill, health insurance will be cheaper, and it will be more accessible, and your life will be better. None of those things have any resemblance to reality. Of course, I could go on about Speaker Pelosi's legislation. It is not going to pass the Senate. I suspect she knows that. What is going to happen next in this opera? Well, if past is prologue, the majority leader and the minority leader in the Senate and the majority leader in the House and the Speaker and Secretary Mnuchin--all of whom I have respect for--will go off and they will negotiate a deal, and then they will come back and they will present it to the Senate and the House. I could be wrong, of course. I am in labor, not management. I could be wrong, of course, but the bill will not go through regular order. It will never be considered by committee. We probably will not be allowed to amend the bill because a deal has been made. It will be ``take it or leave it.'' Now, if past is prologue, given the circumstances, people will moan and groan, but they will vote for the bill, whether they know what is in it or not, whether they were included in the discussions or not. That is what happened with the CARES Act. I am not sure that is going to happen this time. I am not sure that this time the non-negotiating Senators and House Members are going to moo and follow their leaders into the chute like cows. I think this time might be different. I am not saying that is a good or bad thing. It depends on what the deal is. I am raising the possibility. Speaker Pelosi could eliminate every other word in her bill and cut the price tag in half and I still don't think that the Republicans of the Senate are going to support it. If she takes out all the goodies for the leftwing--the left leftwing--of her party--I don't use that in a pejorative sense. If she takes out all the goodies that remake Western civilization in her bill, I am not sure that the leftwing of her party in the House is going to vote for it. What I am saying is, for better or worse, I am not sure there is going to be a fifth bill. That is point 2. Point 3, let me go back to our CARES Act. In our CARES Act, we spent an enormous amount of money to help States and to help local governments. We gave $150 billion directly to States and cities to combat the coronavirus. We appropriated extra money on top of that for public schools. We appropriated extra money on top of that $150 billion for universities. We appropriated extra money on top of all that for our hospitals, many of which are public. We appropriated extra money on top of all of that to give States extra Medicaid money. My State received $1.8 billion for State and local government, $300 million for public schools, $200 million for universities, over $600 million and climbing for our hospitals, and extra Medicaid money. It is about $3.5 billion in Louisiana. That is a lot of money along the bayou. I want to dissuade people who say we haven't done anything for State and local government. We have. We have done a lot. That is point 3. Point 4, I am not guaranteeing it is my final point, but I intend it to be. Point 4, the $1.8 billion that we gave State and local government has restrictions. It can only be spent combating the coronavirus. If you don't spend it combating the coronavirus, you are supposed to give it back. That will happen when donkeys fly. We will never see that money again. It is spent, for better or worse. And I voted for the bill. I don't think any fairminded person can deny the fact--and I think it is a fact--that as a result of the coronavirus, just as the Federal Government has had and will have revenue shortfalls, so will State governments and so will cities. People haven't been paying sales tax because they haven't been buying stuff. People haven't been paying income tax at the State and local levels because they haven't been working. I wish that weren't the case, but it is a fact. My bill would say to those States and cities: You can use the $1.8 billion to offset revenue shortfalls. Some of my colleagues for whom I have great respect--one of them is here tonight, Senator Rick Scott, and I mean that. He was a heck of a Governor. He is a heck of a Senator. They have argued that we shouldn't give that flexibility because some States are mismanaged. I agree with that. I do. If I were King for a day and had a magic wand, I would take all of the many measures that then-Governor Scott implemented in Florida and say we need to do these in every State. We can debate whether that would violate federalism, but I watched him carefully as Governor. He was a great Governor. When he inherited Florida, it was a mess, and he cleaned it up. So when he and others make the point that we shouldn't bail out mismanaged States, I agree with that. But I can't divorce myself from the fact that every State--mismanaged, well managed, medium managed, poorly managed--has revenue losses as a result of the coronavirus. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't cut their budgets. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't scrub their budgets. We ought to do it at the Federal level. That will happen, too, when donkeys fly. We expect our friends at the State level and at the local level to scrub their budgets, but I still think they are going to come up short. I worry that if they do that and they have to start laying off first responders, it is going to hurt the recovery. Now, not everybody agrees with what I have just said, and not everybody agrees with Senator Scott's position. Reasonable people disagree sometimes. But this much I also know: Whether you agree or disagree for the next 6 months, Senator Scott is not going to convince, for example, Governor Cuomo of New York to adopt his position. I am pretty confident of that. And over the next 6 months, Governor Cuomo is not going to convince--I know this--Senator Scott to adopt his position. In the meantime, we have a problem to deal with. I will make one final point. Some of my colleagues have said: Kennedy, we don't need your bill because the Treasury Department through the Secretary of Treasury has issued directives saying that the money can be used for first responders. Now, look, I am a big Secretary Mnuchin fan. I think he has been a rockstar through this process, but I don't understand this concept of a directive. I know what a rule is. I know what a regulation is. I know what due process is. I know what the Administrative Procedure Act is, and I don't think a directive fits into those categories. I also know that a Secretary of a department, no matter how bright and capable and talented he may be, cannot change an act of Congress, and the CARES Act doesn't say a dadgum thing about using this money for first responders. If I am a Governor, I am going to worry that, if I do spend the money without an act of Congress, that someday: Knock, knock, knock on my door. Hello? I am from the government. In fact, I am an inspector general, and I want to see your books, and I have looked at your books, and I want you to give that money back. It has happened before. The only way to give our friends in State and local government security is for us to pass law, not for the bureaucracy to tell us what we did. We know what we did. Look, I know that some on my side of the aisle disagree with me, and I have learned a little bit in 3\1/2\ years. Ihave learned two things mostly. I learned this the first week: Everybody up here who smiles at you is not your friend. And, No. 2, I have learned up here you have got to watch what people do, not what they say. This bill is not coming to the floor of the U.S. Senate anytime soon. I know that. I get it. I am just saying it should. I am saying it if it does--if it does--it will get 90 votes. I am saying, finally, that these revenue losses are real. Managed, mismanaged--we can debate that forever. They are real, and we have got to get this economy up and going again. If States are laying off teachers and first responders and policemen and firemen and people at public hospitals or raising taxes, it is going to be that much harder. That is why we ought to pass my bill. It doesn't spend a single, solitary new penny--no new money. It just gives Governors and mayors a little more flexibility. For that reason, I have to read this long script. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Committee on Appropriations be discharged from further consideration of S. 3608 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 hours of debate, equally divided between the proponents and the opponents of the bill, and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Kennedy substitute amendment No. 1581 be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time, and that the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with a 60 affirmative vote threshold for passage with no intervening action or debate; finally, if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. KENNEDY
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2541
| null | 685
|
formal
|
public school
| null |
racist
|
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes about the Coronavirus Relief Fund Flexibility for State and Local Government Act. Before I get to my motion, I just want to make a couple of points. Point 1, as you know, we have passed four bills dealing with the pool of misery America and the world find themselves in with respect to the coronavirus. We have spent a breathtaking amount of money. I never imagined that I would vote for bills of the magnitude that I have voted for, but we all did what we had to do. If you add up the four bills, we have spent $3 trillion so far. I have expressed it this way before, but I am going to keep doing it because it is just a breathtaking amount of money: $3 trillion is 3-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0 taxpayer dollars. We may have to spend another $3 trillion As you know, we set up some facilities at the Federal Reserve. They are called 13(3) facilities, through which the Federal Reserve is loaning money to American businesses to try to keep them afloat after the government shut down the American economy. The Federal Reserve cannot lose money. I am not suggesting that all $3 trillion that the Federal Reserve ends up loaning out will remain unpaid. I hope not. But for the portion that does go into default, we are going to have to appropriate money to cover those losses. We already appropriated $450 billion, but if the losses go higher, we have to cover them. We have spent $3 trillion for certain and, potentially, we are going to have to spend another $3 trillion. It is a staggering amount of money. The entire U.S. economy, the greatest economy in all of human history, to put things in context, is $21 trillion a year. That is how much we produce a year if you add up all the goods and services that we, as Americans, produce. As you know, Speaker Pelosi has introduced yet another bill, a fifth bill. The House has passed it. It was on a party-line vote. I think one Republican voted for the bill. A number of Democrats voted against it. It was a closevote, but the House passed it at Speaker Pelosi's suggestion. It would cost another $3 trillion. I have to tell you, when I first heard about the bill and after I looked at the bill, I was very, very surprised. I was shocked. I don't mean to overstate my case. I didn't faint or anything, but maybe it would be fair to say that my emotions were a cross between surprise and shocked. It is not a coronavirus bill. It is a ``remake American society'' bill. For one thing, it would cost another $3 trillion. I am not going to recite the zeros again, but $3 trillion is $3,000 billion on top of the money we have already spent. It really would remake American society. The Speaker included provisions about immigration laws. A lot of taxpayer money would be given to people who are in our country illegally. It would let Federal prisoners go free. It would expand the Affordable Care Act, which even President Obama calls Obamacare. I remember when ObamaCare passed. We were promised--President Obama promised--that if you pass this bill, health insurance will be cheaper, and it will be more accessible, and your life will be better. None of those things have any resemblance to reality. Of course, I could go on about Speaker Pelosi's legislation. It is not going to pass the Senate. I suspect she knows that. What is going to happen next in this opera? Well, if past is prologue, the majority leader and the minority leader in the Senate and the majority leader in the House and the Speaker and Secretary Mnuchin--all of whom I have respect for--will go off and they will negotiate a deal, and then they will come back and they will present it to the Senate and the House. I could be wrong, of course. I am in labor, not management. I could be wrong, of course, but the bill will not go through regular order. It will never be considered by committee. We probably will not be allowed to amend the bill because a deal has been made. It will be ``take it or leave it.'' Now, if past is prologue, given the circumstances, people will moan and groan, but they will vote for the bill, whether they know what is in it or not, whether they were included in the discussions or not. That is what happened with the CARES Act. I am not sure that is going to happen this time. I am not sure that this time the non-negotiating Senators and House Members are going to moo and follow their leaders into the chute like cows. I think this time might be different. I am not saying that is a good or bad thing. It depends on what the deal is. I am raising the possibility. Speaker Pelosi could eliminate every other word in her bill and cut the price tag in half and I still don't think that the Republicans of the Senate are going to support it. If she takes out all the goodies for the leftwing--the left leftwing--of her party--I don't use that in a pejorative sense. If she takes out all the goodies that remake Western civilization in her bill, I am not sure that the leftwing of her party in the House is going to vote for it. What I am saying is, for better or worse, I am not sure there is going to be a fifth bill. That is point 2. Point 3, let me go back to our CARES Act. In our CARES Act, we spent an enormous amount of money to help States and to help local governments. We gave $150 billion directly to States and cities to combat the coronavirus. We appropriated extra money on top of that for public schools. We appropriated extra money on top of that $150 billion for universities. We appropriated extra money on top of all that for our hospitals, many of which are public. We appropriated extra money on top of all of that to give States extra Medicaid money. My State received $1.8 billion for State and local government, $300 million for public schools, $200 million for universities, over $600 million and climbing for our hospitals, and extra Medicaid money. It is about $3.5 billion in Louisiana. That is a lot of money along the bayou. I want to dissuade people who say we haven't done anything for State and local government. We have. We have done a lot. That is point 3. Point 4, I am not guaranteeing it is my final point, but I intend it to be. Point 4, the $1.8 billion that we gave State and local government has restrictions. It can only be spent combating the coronavirus. If you don't spend it combating the coronavirus, you are supposed to give it back. That will happen when donkeys fly. We will never see that money again. It is spent, for better or worse. And I voted for the bill. I don't think any fairminded person can deny the fact--and I think it is a fact--that as a result of the coronavirus, just as the Federal Government has had and will have revenue shortfalls, so will State governments and so will cities. People haven't been paying sales tax because they haven't been buying stuff. People haven't been paying income tax at the State and local levels because they haven't been working. I wish that weren't the case, but it is a fact. My bill would say to those States and cities: You can use the $1.8 billion to offset revenue shortfalls. Some of my colleagues for whom I have great respect--one of them is here tonight, Senator Rick Scott, and I mean that. He was a heck of a Governor. He is a heck of a Senator. They have argued that we shouldn't give that flexibility because some States are mismanaged. I agree with that. I do. If I were King for a day and had a magic wand, I would take all of the many measures that then-Governor Scott implemented in Florida and say we need to do these in every State. We can debate whether that would violate federalism, but I watched him carefully as Governor. He was a great Governor. When he inherited Florida, it was a mess, and he cleaned it up. So when he and others make the point that we shouldn't bail out mismanaged States, I agree with that. But I can't divorce myself from the fact that every State--mismanaged, well managed, medium managed, poorly managed--has revenue losses as a result of the coronavirus. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't cut their budgets. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't scrub their budgets. We ought to do it at the Federal level. That will happen, too, when donkeys fly. We expect our friends at the State level and at the local level to scrub their budgets, but I still think they are going to come up short. I worry that if they do that and they have to start laying off first responders, it is going to hurt the recovery. Now, not everybody agrees with what I have just said, and not everybody agrees with Senator Scott's position. Reasonable people disagree sometimes. But this much I also know: Whether you agree or disagree for the next 6 months, Senator Scott is not going to convince, for example, Governor Cuomo of New York to adopt his position. I am pretty confident of that. And over the next 6 months, Governor Cuomo is not going to convince--I know this--Senator Scott to adopt his position. In the meantime, we have a problem to deal with. I will make one final point. Some of my colleagues have said: Kennedy, we don't need your bill because the Treasury Department through the Secretary of Treasury has issued directives saying that the money can be used for first responders. Now, look, I am a big Secretary Mnuchin fan. I think he has been a rockstar through this process, but I don't understand this concept of a directive. I know what a rule is. I know what a regulation is. I know what due process is. I know what the Administrative Procedure Act is, and I don't think a directive fits into those categories. I also know that a Secretary of a department, no matter how bright and capable and talented he may be, cannot change an act of Congress, and the CARES Act doesn't say a dadgum thing about using this money for first responders. If I am a Governor, I am going to worry that, if I do spend the money without an act of Congress, that someday: Knock, knock, knock on my door. Hello? I am from the government. In fact, I am an inspector general, and I want to see your books, and I have looked at your books, and I want you to give that money back. It has happened before. The only way to give our friends in State and local government security is for us to pass law, not for the bureaucracy to tell us what we did. We know what we did. Look, I know that some on my side of the aisle disagree with me, and I have learned a little bit in 3\1/2\ years. Ihave learned two things mostly. I learned this the first week: Everybody up here who smiles at you is not your friend. And, No. 2, I have learned up here you have got to watch what people do, not what they say. This bill is not coming to the floor of the U.S. Senate anytime soon. I know that. I get it. I am just saying it should. I am saying it if it does--if it does--it will get 90 votes. I am saying, finally, that these revenue losses are real. Managed, mismanaged--we can debate that forever. They are real, and we have got to get this economy up and going again. If States are laying off teachers and first responders and policemen and firemen and people at public hospitals or raising taxes, it is going to be that much harder. That is why we ought to pass my bill. It doesn't spend a single, solitary new penny--no new money. It just gives Governors and mayors a little more flexibility. For that reason, I have to read this long script. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Committee on Appropriations be discharged from further consideration of S. 3608 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 hours of debate, equally divided between the proponents and the opponents of the bill, and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Kennedy substitute amendment No. 1581 be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time, and that the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with a 60 affirmative vote threshold for passage with no intervening action or debate; finally, if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. KENNEDY
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2541
| null | 686
|
formal
|
public schools
| null |
racist
|
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes about the Coronavirus Relief Fund Flexibility for State and Local Government Act. Before I get to my motion, I just want to make a couple of points. Point 1, as you know, we have passed four bills dealing with the pool of misery America and the world find themselves in with respect to the coronavirus. We have spent a breathtaking amount of money. I never imagined that I would vote for bills of the magnitude that I have voted for, but we all did what we had to do. If you add up the four bills, we have spent $3 trillion so far. I have expressed it this way before, but I am going to keep doing it because it is just a breathtaking amount of money: $3 trillion is 3-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0 taxpayer dollars. We may have to spend another $3 trillion As you know, we set up some facilities at the Federal Reserve. They are called 13(3) facilities, through which the Federal Reserve is loaning money to American businesses to try to keep them afloat after the government shut down the American economy. The Federal Reserve cannot lose money. I am not suggesting that all $3 trillion that the Federal Reserve ends up loaning out will remain unpaid. I hope not. But for the portion that does go into default, we are going to have to appropriate money to cover those losses. We already appropriated $450 billion, but if the losses go higher, we have to cover them. We have spent $3 trillion for certain and, potentially, we are going to have to spend another $3 trillion. It is a staggering amount of money. The entire U.S. economy, the greatest economy in all of human history, to put things in context, is $21 trillion a year. That is how much we produce a year if you add up all the goods and services that we, as Americans, produce. As you know, Speaker Pelosi has introduced yet another bill, a fifth bill. The House has passed it. It was on a party-line vote. I think one Republican voted for the bill. A number of Democrats voted against it. It was a closevote, but the House passed it at Speaker Pelosi's suggestion. It would cost another $3 trillion. I have to tell you, when I first heard about the bill and after I looked at the bill, I was very, very surprised. I was shocked. I don't mean to overstate my case. I didn't faint or anything, but maybe it would be fair to say that my emotions were a cross between surprise and shocked. It is not a coronavirus bill. It is a ``remake American society'' bill. For one thing, it would cost another $3 trillion. I am not going to recite the zeros again, but $3 trillion is $3,000 billion on top of the money we have already spent. It really would remake American society. The Speaker included provisions about immigration laws. A lot of taxpayer money would be given to people who are in our country illegally. It would let Federal prisoners go free. It would expand the Affordable Care Act, which even President Obama calls Obamacare. I remember when ObamaCare passed. We were promised--President Obama promised--that if you pass this bill, health insurance will be cheaper, and it will be more accessible, and your life will be better. None of those things have any resemblance to reality. Of course, I could go on about Speaker Pelosi's legislation. It is not going to pass the Senate. I suspect she knows that. What is going to happen next in this opera? Well, if past is prologue, the majority leader and the minority leader in the Senate and the majority leader in the House and the Speaker and Secretary Mnuchin--all of whom I have respect for--will go off and they will negotiate a deal, and then they will come back and they will present it to the Senate and the House. I could be wrong, of course. I am in labor, not management. I could be wrong, of course, but the bill will not go through regular order. It will never be considered by committee. We probably will not be allowed to amend the bill because a deal has been made. It will be ``take it or leave it.'' Now, if past is prologue, given the circumstances, people will moan and groan, but they will vote for the bill, whether they know what is in it or not, whether they were included in the discussions or not. That is what happened with the CARES Act. I am not sure that is going to happen this time. I am not sure that this time the non-negotiating Senators and House Members are going to moo and follow their leaders into the chute like cows. I think this time might be different. I am not saying that is a good or bad thing. It depends on what the deal is. I am raising the possibility. Speaker Pelosi could eliminate every other word in her bill and cut the price tag in half and I still don't think that the Republicans of the Senate are going to support it. If she takes out all the goodies for the leftwing--the left leftwing--of her party--I don't use that in a pejorative sense. If she takes out all the goodies that remake Western civilization in her bill, I am not sure that the leftwing of her party in the House is going to vote for it. What I am saying is, for better or worse, I am not sure there is going to be a fifth bill. That is point 2. Point 3, let me go back to our CARES Act. In our CARES Act, we spent an enormous amount of money to help States and to help local governments. We gave $150 billion directly to States and cities to combat the coronavirus. We appropriated extra money on top of that for public schools. We appropriated extra money on top of that $150 billion for universities. We appropriated extra money on top of all that for our hospitals, many of which are public. We appropriated extra money on top of all of that to give States extra Medicaid money. My State received $1.8 billion for State and local government, $300 million for public schools, $200 million for universities, over $600 million and climbing for our hospitals, and extra Medicaid money. It is about $3.5 billion in Louisiana. That is a lot of money along the bayou. I want to dissuade people who say we haven't done anything for State and local government. We have. We have done a lot. That is point 3. Point 4, I am not guaranteeing it is my final point, but I intend it to be. Point 4, the $1.8 billion that we gave State and local government has restrictions. It can only be spent combating the coronavirus. If you don't spend it combating the coronavirus, you are supposed to give it back. That will happen when donkeys fly. We will never see that money again. It is spent, for better or worse. And I voted for the bill. I don't think any fairminded person can deny the fact--and I think it is a fact--that as a result of the coronavirus, just as the Federal Government has had and will have revenue shortfalls, so will State governments and so will cities. People haven't been paying sales tax because they haven't been buying stuff. People haven't been paying income tax at the State and local levels because they haven't been working. I wish that weren't the case, but it is a fact. My bill would say to those States and cities: You can use the $1.8 billion to offset revenue shortfalls. Some of my colleagues for whom I have great respect--one of them is here tonight, Senator Rick Scott, and I mean that. He was a heck of a Governor. He is a heck of a Senator. They have argued that we shouldn't give that flexibility because some States are mismanaged. I agree with that. I do. If I were King for a day and had a magic wand, I would take all of the many measures that then-Governor Scott implemented in Florida and say we need to do these in every State. We can debate whether that would violate federalism, but I watched him carefully as Governor. He was a great Governor. When he inherited Florida, it was a mess, and he cleaned it up. So when he and others make the point that we shouldn't bail out mismanaged States, I agree with that. But I can't divorce myself from the fact that every State--mismanaged, well managed, medium managed, poorly managed--has revenue losses as a result of the coronavirus. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't cut their budgets. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't scrub their budgets. We ought to do it at the Federal level. That will happen, too, when donkeys fly. We expect our friends at the State level and at the local level to scrub their budgets, but I still think they are going to come up short. I worry that if they do that and they have to start laying off first responders, it is going to hurt the recovery. Now, not everybody agrees with what I have just said, and not everybody agrees with Senator Scott's position. Reasonable people disagree sometimes. But this much I also know: Whether you agree or disagree for the next 6 months, Senator Scott is not going to convince, for example, Governor Cuomo of New York to adopt his position. I am pretty confident of that. And over the next 6 months, Governor Cuomo is not going to convince--I know this--Senator Scott to adopt his position. In the meantime, we have a problem to deal with. I will make one final point. Some of my colleagues have said: Kennedy, we don't need your bill because the Treasury Department through the Secretary of Treasury has issued directives saying that the money can be used for first responders. Now, look, I am a big Secretary Mnuchin fan. I think he has been a rockstar through this process, but I don't understand this concept of a directive. I know what a rule is. I know what a regulation is. I know what due process is. I know what the Administrative Procedure Act is, and I don't think a directive fits into those categories. I also know that a Secretary of a department, no matter how bright and capable and talented he may be, cannot change an act of Congress, and the CARES Act doesn't say a dadgum thing about using this money for first responders. If I am a Governor, I am going to worry that, if I do spend the money without an act of Congress, that someday: Knock, knock, knock on my door. Hello? I am from the government. In fact, I am an inspector general, and I want to see your books, and I have looked at your books, and I want you to give that money back. It has happened before. The only way to give our friends in State and local government security is for us to pass law, not for the bureaucracy to tell us what we did. We know what we did. Look, I know that some on my side of the aisle disagree with me, and I have learned a little bit in 3\1/2\ years. Ihave learned two things mostly. I learned this the first week: Everybody up here who smiles at you is not your friend. And, No. 2, I have learned up here you have got to watch what people do, not what they say. This bill is not coming to the floor of the U.S. Senate anytime soon. I know that. I get it. I am just saying it should. I am saying it if it does--if it does--it will get 90 votes. I am saying, finally, that these revenue losses are real. Managed, mismanaged--we can debate that forever. They are real, and we have got to get this economy up and going again. If States are laying off teachers and first responders and policemen and firemen and people at public hospitals or raising taxes, it is going to be that much harder. That is why we ought to pass my bill. It doesn't spend a single, solitary new penny--no new money. It just gives Governors and mayors a little more flexibility. For that reason, I have to read this long script. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Committee on Appropriations be discharged from further consideration of S. 3608 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 hours of debate, equally divided between the proponents and the opponents of the bill, and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Kennedy substitute amendment No. 1581 be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time, and that the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with a 60 affirmative vote threshold for passage with no intervening action or debate; finally, if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. KENNEDY
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2541
| null | 687
|
formal
|
based
| null |
white supremacist
|
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor to talk about how Congress can do a better job in responding to the coronavirus pandemic that has gripped our country. I just thought that debate was great, something we just heard a moment ago about what we should do going forward. This crisis is unlike anything we have ever seen. I mean, it has devastated so many families. It has turned our lives upside down. It has put an enormous strain on our healthcare system; and our frontline healthcare workers, our researchers, our first responders are working around the clock to help patients and look for treatments. For the past couple of months, every American has been asked to do his or her part through social distancing, through doing smart things like wearing masks, like being sure that we are doing all we can within our home, within our workplace, and out in public to stop the spread of the dangerous virus. I think these have helped. I think these measures have made a difference, and I think we are in a better place by most metrics on the public health danger. I just saw the numbers from Ohio a moment ago here, and we have fewer new positive cases today than we have had over the past week or the past few weeks on average, and so we are beginning to make progress, but it has come at an enormous cost to our economy, and I would say even at an enormous cost to our culture and our society. Since the crisis began a couple of months ago, more than 36 million Americans have lost their jobs or filed for unemployment. Some estimates show that we could potentially hit a 25-percent unemployment rate before this is over. I think we probably will. By the way, that would match the worst of our country's unemployment that we have ever seen, and that would be during the Great Depression. That is where we are headed. Some small businesses have had to close their doors; others are teetering right on the brink of bankruptcy. Hospitals have been closed for needed procedures like mammograms and cancer screenings. More are being missed every day, and basic healthcare is at risk. So that is one consequence that we don't always focus on, but our healthcare system has had to respond to the coronavirus appropriately. But there is a balance here, and the result has been we have had other healthcare needs that have gone unmet. Without that revenue, by the way, from surgeries--so-called elective surgeries, although some aren't very elective, like they are necessary surgeries for a back or a knee or something like that--many hospitals now are in very deep financial trouble because that is how they make most of their money. Colleges and universities, of course, are losing revenue, and children are out of school, which is not a good thing because our kids, many of whom are not able to get the same help at home that they can get at school are falling behind. We have also got to acknowledge the impacts of isolation on people's mental health, on substance abuse. I talked to an individual earlier today who focuses a lot on human trafficking, an area I have worked a lot in, and he is talking about the increase he has seen in domestic violence and human trafficking and the calls that have increased, the number of suicides. This is all troubling. This kind of a crisis, therefore, requires swift and decisive action to ensure that we have got the resources and the help to be able to respond to both the healthcare crisis, which we have to address on the coronavirus front, but also on the economic and the broader societal issues we talked about here and how it impacts us and the rest of our lives. It is a tough balance. I think, for the most part, Congress and the Trump administration have done that. They have responded swiftly and correctly with major new legislation. We came together here in Congress, on a bipartisan basis, to pass legislation already that has addressed the healthcare crisis the virus has caused. We have also passed legislation that has helped the economic crisis caused by government at all levels effectively pumping the brakes on the economy. The legislation that has been enacted, of course, isn't perfect. It is thousands of pages, and it is now four different bills that have been passed already. I think it was necessary for us to act quickly, in a unified manner, and on a bipartisan basis to get stuff done around here. By the way, that bipartisanship has been a welcome change because that is not typical for this place. So far, on each of the 4 pieces of legislation we passed to respond to the challenges of this pandemic, an average of 500 of the 535 Members of both the House and Senate have voted in favor of passage. That is how bipartisan it has been. Five hundred of the 535, on average, have voted yes on these 4 pieces of legislation. These are not small bills. Combined, the funds provided by these first four rescue packages total about $2.8 trillion. That is $2.8 trillion--$2,800 billion. Phase 3 of the CARES Act alone--the most recent one we passed--is about $2.2 trillion in resources. That is an unprecedented amount of spending. It has never been done before. It has certainly never been done in such a short period of time. Now Congress is talking about a fifth rescue package. The fifth rescue package that is being talked about--it has already passed the House of Representatives. It is being talked about even though--and this might surprise you--only about half of the $2.8 trillion in the first four packages has actually been disbursed. Think about that. Only about half of the money in the first four legislative projects that we have undertaken here has actually gone out the door to the intended recipients. Yet we are talking about another package. For example, the Paycheck Protection Program to help small businesses stay afloat still has about 25 percent of its original capacity that hasn't gone out, about $160 billion. Well below halfof the funding--the $175 billion that Congress provided to hospitals has yet to be sent out under the Provider Relief Fund. Less than half of the healthcare dollars have even gone out the door. Of the roughly $450 billion that the CARES Act gave to Treasury to unlock the Federal Reserve lending facilities, less than $40 billion of that has been operational. That is right--less than 10 percent of the money designated to provide direct lending to businesses of all sizes so they can stay in business and hire people has been sent out. So even though about half the money from the CARES Act hasn't even been spent--and we still don't have a good handle, of course, on how the money that has been sent out is being spent--Democrats in the House have gone ahead and passed a new rescue package. In many respects, it is a wish list of Democratic priorities that has been talked about here on the floor. Some are related to the coronavirus, and some are not. It passed by a near-party line vote. I think one Republican voted yes and more than a dozen Democrats--more moderate Democrats--voted no. Again, this is a $3 trillion package--$3,000 billion. That is more than the total spending of all four of the previous coronavirus bills. So all four of the previous combined are less than the spending that the House is recommending for the fifth coronavirus bill. It is actually also a lot more money than Congress would normally appropriate in an entire fiscal year. It is about half of what we just appropriated from the fiscal year we are in, in one bill--in one bill. I am sorry; it is twice as much as Congress appropriated for the current 12-month period we are in. So the appropriations for this fiscal year, 2020, are less than half of what the House is now proposing to spend in one bill. I think, you know, we have to be very cautious, and we have to be sure it is the right amount of money going out because it is a huge and unprecedented spending package. Our annual deficit here in the Congress is already projected to be over $1 trillion. We were already running a large deficit. By the way, it has only been at that level four times in the history of our country. So the $1 trillion was already viewed by many of us, including me, to be an unacceptably high number for our annual deficit. Now the estimate is that this year's annual deficit will be between $3.7 trillion and $4.2 trillion--mind-boggling. We have just never had deficits like these before. Of course, that adds to the $23 trillion national debt, which is already at record levels. We are entering dangerous, unchartered waters here from a fiscal point of view. Most economists agree that this increases the chance of a fiscal and therefore a financial crisis that would follow. Of course, we have to respond to this immediate crisis. Again, I voted for the first four bills. I believe it was necessary to act and act quickly, but I also believe there are real limits as to how much financial risk we should take beyond the, again, $2.8 trillion we have already spent in the first four bills. We have to be sure, at a minimum, that every new dollar is spent as wisely as possible, so it is as targeted as possible. Even overlooking the massive $3 trillion price tag, by the way, the House bill also focuses on some things that just seem unrelated to this crisis. For example, the House spends $136 billion on repealing the cap on the State and local tax deduction. There is a deduction, but it is capped right now. By the way, this $136 billion policy they have in their bill would deliver half of its benefits--50 percent of its tax benefits to the top 1 percent of taxpayers. Tell me how that is related to the coronavirus. To put that in some context, we can use that same amount of money--the $136 billion--to provide almost 2 million more PPP loans to small businesses that need it most: movie theaters, bowling alleys, restaurants, bars. There are also provisions that would force States to adopt broad changes in their election laws regardless of whether they want to. Election law has always been in the province of the States, but that is in this legislation. They also want to raise taxes on employers. Bad time to raise taxes. We want employers to stay in business because they are the ones who create the jobs. They also want to help cannabis growers, which I think is interesting. Cannabis is mentioned dozens of times in the legislation. They also want $50 million, as an example, for environmental justice grants. What does that have to do with the coronavirus Once more of the existing funds are delivered--in other words, as I said earlier, of the first four bills, only about half of it has even gone to the intended recipients. Once more of these existing funds are delivered and we know more about what is working, what is not working, and where the needs are, I suspect more funds will be needed. They will probably be needed for the healthcare side of this--for testing, as an example--and that is probably money well spent. There probably needs to be more flexibility, as the Senator from Louisiana just talked about. I believe there does need to be more flexibility. I also believe we need to find out, once the money goes to the local communities, what their budgets look like. Do they need more money to be able to continue to provide police protection, firefighters' salaries, and EMS services? We don't know that yet. How can we know it when the money hasn't even gone down yet? In Ohio, not one penny is gone except for the amount that went directly to the largest five counties and the one large city. But the part that went to the State hasn't even gone down to the local communities, and that is happening all over the country. We need more information to be able to know how much of this new spending is necessary. But again, even with all the new spending, this new $3 trillion House bill does very little to do something else really important in the next bill, which is help get the economy moving. Again, it raises taxes on businesses. It does some other things that have nothing to do with the coronavirus. What it doesn't do is it doesn't provide the stimulus you would hope would be in the next bill we are going to pass because that is what everybody is looking for right now. How do you do something here in Washington to make it easier to create jobs, make it easier to invest, make it easier for small businesses to get back on their feet? Much of what we did in the first four bills was really a rescue package, and it was necessary. People had lost their jobs for no reason that they could do anything about. It wasn't their fault--36 million Americans. We had to do something to shore that up--the direct payments, unemployment insurance, and other things. We had to help small businesses with the PPP program to ensure they weren't going to close their doors, some forever. Those were more rescue packages to get us through the storm, to weather the storm. Now we have to figure out how we do something to actually get this economy moving. That ought to be the goal because there is a limit to how much Federal tax dollars can be relied on to subsidize the economy. The better way is to get the economy moving, get revenues flowing again, and reopen, therefore, our hospitals and schools. Hospitals can get more revenue if they can reopen and do more procedures, and they can keep from either shutting their doors or relying on the Federal taxpayer for more and more subsidies. Getting back to work is critical, and we have to do it in a safe way, and we can. We have to use social distancing smart practices. We have to be sure we have the testing. I agree with all that. But any new legislation that Congress considers has to include measures that are going to help get people back into the workforce safely and get this economy moving again. I think that should include some tax incentives for investment and jobs. I think it should include some targeted infrastructure investments to create good jobs and also economic benefits that come from the right kind of infrastructure. I think one place to start is Federal highway projects. We need to pass that bill around here. Also, there are a bunch of State highway projects that would normally be funded by the State gas tax. Because we aren't driving nearly as much, the State gas tax has plummeted. In the State of Ohio, for instance, there are a lot of greatprojects out there that have gone through all the process. They have been vetted, and they have gone through a merit-based process. They are ready to go. In other words, they are shovel-ready. Yet the State is not going to have enough money to pay for them. So rather than sending the money to the States, how about sending some money directly to these infrastructure projects? Good jobs. Economic benefits. The analysis is, in the right kind of infrastructure investments, you spend a dollar and you get back more than a dollar in terms of revenue from the economic benefit. That is the sort of thing I think should be in this next package to help get the economy back on its feet. Right now, I am told by small businesses that one of the biggest barriers to getting the economy going is the unemployment insurance provisions that were passed as part of the CARES Act back in March. This is what I am hearing from small business owners all around Ohio--that the additional unemployment insurance benefits in the CARES Act, which allow individuals at or below the average income to receive more in unemployment than they could get at work, is a disincentive to work Of course, again, we needed to act to make sure people who lost their jobs through no fault of they own could get by while government at every level effectively pumped the brakes on the economy to better withstand the health crisis. In other words, people lost their jobs because the government said: You can't go to work. At the same time, it was not the best solution to provide a flat $600 increase in benefits to everybody, which is on top of the State unemployment insurance benefits, and that is what we did. That was the proposal here that was passed. That continues, by the way, until July 31. Wage replacement for people making at or below the average income level would have been a good and generous approach--in other words, saying: If you make up to whatever the wage average is in your State--$52,000 a year, $48,000 a year, or $58,000 a year--you get full wage replacement. But that is not what this is. The $600 on top of the State benefit, which is, on average, $360 probably, puts you up near $1,000 a week. That is more than wage replacement for people who make less than the average wage. Regardless of how you feel about the $600-per-week Federal increase, we are in a very different situation now than we were 2 months ago when we passed it. Back then, remember, we were encouraging people to stay home and not to go to work because that was the time period when we were shutting things down and we were giving stay-at-home orders. So it made much more sense to have an unemployment insurance system that actually would encourage people to stay home. Now we are reopening all around the country, and, small business people are telling me: I would like to get started again, but I can't get the employees. Some say: Well, you can go to that unemployment insurance office and say ``I have a job,'' and then, under the State's rules, they have to tell these people ``You are no longer under UI, and you have to go back to work.'' That is true, but, one, the unemployment insurance systems are overwhelmed. They tell me that really is not something they have the capability of doing right now. They are overwhelmed. They have never seen these kinds of numbers ever. Secondly, a lot of employers don't want to do that, and I get it. Their employees are making a lot more money, in some cases, on unemployment insurance than they can in their place of business, and they are just hesitant to tell them to come back and make less money. I do think there is a role for us to help make that happen and do it in a smart way. Things are different in other respects too. Not only is the economy starting to reopen around the country, but it is being done in a much safer manner. Why? Because we have a lot more testing, and that is good. We need to do a lot more, by the way. Ohio has gone from about 3,700 tests per day a few weeks ago to over 10,000 tests a day now. Soon it will be over 20,000 tests a day in a couple of weeks, they say. That is good. We also have more PPE, personal protective gear, and that is important because if you reopen--say you run a factory. You want people to have the protective gear they need to keep them safe. Also, we finally have some anti-viral medications coming online, thank goodness. Remdesivir is the first one approved by the FDA. It is now in Ohio, my own State, and other States. People are using it. That is great. That gives people more comfort in being able to go back to work more safely. It is time to start to transition from thinking about helping people get by and helping to encourage them to stay home through unemployment to thinking about how we can get people back into the workforce safely so we can get this economy, our small businesses, our hospitals, our colleges and universities, back on track. We should also want to help people get back to work because that is good for everybody. It is where most people get their healthcare--from work, from their employer. We want to get them back to that. It is where most people get their retirement, their 401(k). Not everybody offers it, but if you have one, you are probably getting it from work. It is good to get people back to work and connected with their benefits. It is also good to get people returning to a safe workplace because that is what most people want to do. They want to go back to work. They don't want to stay on unemployment insurance. Yes, it pays more for many Americans, but they would rather be at work. The dignity and self-respect for work is real. It gives meaning to your life. I think we need to take a hard look at this flat $600 increase in the unemployment benefits and ask ourselves whether it is really in the best interest of those workers, of our businesses. Is it really the best system to have it in place when we are trying to get people to get back to work? Again, this additional $600 benefit on top of the $360 average the States have means that unless you are making more than $50,000--or in some States, $60,000 a year--it is more advantageous to be on unemployment insurance than to go back to work. A recent study by the American Action Forum and the University of Chicago says that between 60 and 70 percent of individuals on unemployment are making more than they did in their prior job--60 to 70 percent. Further, for about 20 percent of wage earners, they say, on average, they are making double on unemployment insurance what they made in the workforce. So they say that for the bottom 20 percent of wage earners, on average, they are making double on unemployment insurance. Again, people needed the help. They needed direct payments, and they needed the UI help. A lot of people lost their jobs and had no income coming in just to put food on the table, pay the rent, and pay their car payment. Some people used this UI, even though it was more than they were making before, to help with healthcare. That is important. But isn't the best thing to do is to get people back to work? We need to continue to help people during this time who have lost their jobs, no question. Not every business is ready to reopen, by the way, and the employees who had to be let go by some businesses certainly shouldn't be punished for that. At the same time, we have to ask ourselves whether there is a way we can combine that need with the need to actually get people back to work as we reopen. I think there is. Specifically, I would propose that instead of keeping in place the additional $600 of the Federal benefit for people on unemployment between now and July 31, let's shift some of those Federal dollars to a back-to-work bonus--a program where you let people take some of that $600 with them to work. I propose $450 a week. Others have different numbers, probably. They think that is too much, or they think it is too little. I chose $450 per week because that represents the amount that would be needed to make a person making the average minimum wage better off in the workforce than on unemployment. When you take the minimum wages around the country, on average, you take $450 a week with you to work. That means that you would be making a little bit more in the workforce than you would be on unemployment. What is more, this return-to-work bonus would put additional cash in the hands of individuals who lost their jobs due to the health crisis, which would provide additional stimulus to the economy, which is experiencing historic declines in consumer spending. This incentive for people to get back into the workforce to get our economy running again is exactly the kind of policy we should all want. Instead, I will tell you that as for the $3 trillion House bill we talked about earlier, all it does is to propose extending the $600 per month from the end of its expiration at the end of July into the beginning of next year. We talked earlier about how the next package--whatever it is--ought to encourage the economy to get moving again, right? The House bill doesn't do that in a lot of respects we talked about. But, specifically, on unemployment insurance, what it says is, let's continue this policy of making it harder for people to get back to work. It will ensure that that 60 or 70 percent of the workforce that the study showed are making more on unemployment insurance would be better off staying on the unemployment rolls. By the way, it is also another $300 billion of taxpayer spending in this $3 trillion bill. I don't think it is going to move our country forward. It is going to make it even harder to get back on track. By the way, our back-to-work bonus also benefits taxpayers. So instead of $300 billion in additional funding that is going to go into the House bill for unemployment insurance, if we assume that States would have trouble enforcing their UI laws, which we talked about earlier, and that individuals would choose unemployment over returning to work, even if 25 percent of those who were on unemployment insurance today chose to take advantage of this $450 bonus--and I think a lot will; I think a lot more than that will, but let's be conservative, and let's say that just 25 percent take advantage of it--that will result in tens of billions of dollars of savings to the taxpayer. Think about it. For the State, they will not have the unemployment insurance benefit that they are providing because the person will be at work. That is good. And for the Federal Government, the $600 is reduced to $450. So that enables savings to the taxpayer. It enables people to get back to work. It allows our small businesses to be able to reopen. It is a solution that I think Republicans and Democrats alike can get behind. Let's continue to help the people who can't return to the workplace through no fault of their own, but let's also remember that the American people right now are looking to us here in Congress to come together on a bipartisan basis to put in place policies that will actually help move us forward in this crisis, get back to normalcy, get back to work safely, and get our economy back on the historically strong footing it had here only a few months ago. Back in February, we had the 19th straight month of wage increases of over 3 percent, most of which was going to lower income and middle-income workers. We had unemployment tied with the 50-year low. Unemployment was low then. It is incredibly high now. To get back to that, we have to put some more policies in place, and I believe the back-to-work bonus is exactly that. It will not solve everything, but it will help people get back into jobs, and it will send a clear message that Congress is looking forward and providing a positive path forward for workers, for small businesses, and for taxpayers. Thank you. I yield the floor
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. PORTMAN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2544
| null | 688
|
formal
|
Federal Reserve
| null |
antisemitic
|
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor to talk about how Congress can do a better job in responding to the coronavirus pandemic that has gripped our country. I just thought that debate was great, something we just heard a moment ago about what we should do going forward. This crisis is unlike anything we have ever seen. I mean, it has devastated so many families. It has turned our lives upside down. It has put an enormous strain on our healthcare system; and our frontline healthcare workers, our researchers, our first responders are working around the clock to help patients and look for treatments. For the past couple of months, every American has been asked to do his or her part through social distancing, through doing smart things like wearing masks, like being sure that we are doing all we can within our home, within our workplace, and out in public to stop the spread of the dangerous virus. I think these have helped. I think these measures have made a difference, and I think we are in a better place by most metrics on the public health danger. I just saw the numbers from Ohio a moment ago here, and we have fewer new positive cases today than we have had over the past week or the past few weeks on average, and so we are beginning to make progress, but it has come at an enormous cost to our economy, and I would say even at an enormous cost to our culture and our society. Since the crisis began a couple of months ago, more than 36 million Americans have lost their jobs or filed for unemployment. Some estimates show that we could potentially hit a 25-percent unemployment rate before this is over. I think we probably will. By the way, that would match the worst of our country's unemployment that we have ever seen, and that would be during the Great Depression. That is where we are headed. Some small businesses have had to close their doors; others are teetering right on the brink of bankruptcy. Hospitals have been closed for needed procedures like mammograms and cancer screenings. More are being missed every day, and basic healthcare is at risk. So that is one consequence that we don't always focus on, but our healthcare system has had to respond to the coronavirus appropriately. But there is a balance here, and the result has been we have had other healthcare needs that have gone unmet. Without that revenue, by the way, from surgeries--so-called elective surgeries, although some aren't very elective, like they are necessary surgeries for a back or a knee or something like that--many hospitals now are in very deep financial trouble because that is how they make most of their money. Colleges and universities, of course, are losing revenue, and children are out of school, which is not a good thing because our kids, many of whom are not able to get the same help at home that they can get at school are falling behind. We have also got to acknowledge the impacts of isolation on people's mental health, on substance abuse. I talked to an individual earlier today who focuses a lot on human trafficking, an area I have worked a lot in, and he is talking about the increase he has seen in domestic violence and human trafficking and the calls that have increased, the number of suicides. This is all troubling. This kind of a crisis, therefore, requires swift and decisive action to ensure that we have got the resources and the help to be able to respond to both the healthcare crisis, which we have to address on the coronavirus front, but also on the economic and the broader societal issues we talked about here and how it impacts us and the rest of our lives. It is a tough balance. I think, for the most part, Congress and the Trump administration have done that. They have responded swiftly and correctly with major new legislation. We came together here in Congress, on a bipartisan basis, to pass legislation already that has addressed the healthcare crisis the virus has caused. We have also passed legislation that has helped the economic crisis caused by government at all levels effectively pumping the brakes on the economy. The legislation that has been enacted, of course, isn't perfect. It is thousands of pages, and it is now four different bills that have been passed already. I think it was necessary for us to act quickly, in a unified manner, and on a bipartisan basis to get stuff done around here. By the way, that bipartisanship has been a welcome change because that is not typical for this place. So far, on each of the 4 pieces of legislation we passed to respond to the challenges of this pandemic, an average of 500 of the 535 Members of both the House and Senate have voted in favor of passage. That is how bipartisan it has been. Five hundred of the 535, on average, have voted yes on these 4 pieces of legislation. These are not small bills. Combined, the funds provided by these first four rescue packages total about $2.8 trillion. That is $2.8 trillion--$2,800 billion. Phase 3 of the CARES Act alone--the most recent one we passed--is about $2.2 trillion in resources. That is an unprecedented amount of spending. It has never been done before. It has certainly never been done in such a short period of time. Now Congress is talking about a fifth rescue package. The fifth rescue package that is being talked about--it has already passed the House of Representatives. It is being talked about even though--and this might surprise you--only about half of the $2.8 trillion in the first four packages has actually been disbursed. Think about that. Only about half of the money in the first four legislative projects that we have undertaken here has actually gone out the door to the intended recipients. Yet we are talking about another package. For example, the Paycheck Protection Program to help small businesses stay afloat still has about 25 percent of its original capacity that hasn't gone out, about $160 billion. Well below halfof the funding--the $175 billion that Congress provided to hospitals has yet to be sent out under the Provider Relief Fund. Less than half of the healthcare dollars have even gone out the door. Of the roughly $450 billion that the CARES Act gave to Treasury to unlock the Federal Reserve lending facilities, less than $40 billion of that has been operational. That is right--less than 10 percent of the money designated to provide direct lending to businesses of all sizes so they can stay in business and hire people has been sent out. So even though about half the money from the CARES Act hasn't even been spent--and we still don't have a good handle, of course, on how the money that has been sent out is being spent--Democrats in the House have gone ahead and passed a new rescue package. In many respects, it is a wish list of Democratic priorities that has been talked about here on the floor. Some are related to the coronavirus, and some are not. It passed by a near-party line vote. I think one Republican voted yes and more than a dozen Democrats--more moderate Democrats--voted no. Again, this is a $3 trillion package--$3,000 billion. That is more than the total spending of all four of the previous coronavirus bills. So all four of the previous combined are less than the spending that the House is recommending for the fifth coronavirus bill. It is actually also a lot more money than Congress would normally appropriate in an entire fiscal year. It is about half of what we just appropriated from the fiscal year we are in, in one bill--in one bill. I am sorry; it is twice as much as Congress appropriated for the current 12-month period we are in. So the appropriations for this fiscal year, 2020, are less than half of what the House is now proposing to spend in one bill. I think, you know, we have to be very cautious, and we have to be sure it is the right amount of money going out because it is a huge and unprecedented spending package. Our annual deficit here in the Congress is already projected to be over $1 trillion. We were already running a large deficit. By the way, it has only been at that level four times in the history of our country. So the $1 trillion was already viewed by many of us, including me, to be an unacceptably high number for our annual deficit. Now the estimate is that this year's annual deficit will be between $3.7 trillion and $4.2 trillion--mind-boggling. We have just never had deficits like these before. Of course, that adds to the $23 trillion national debt, which is already at record levels. We are entering dangerous, unchartered waters here from a fiscal point of view. Most economists agree that this increases the chance of a fiscal and therefore a financial crisis that would follow. Of course, we have to respond to this immediate crisis. Again, I voted for the first four bills. I believe it was necessary to act and act quickly, but I also believe there are real limits as to how much financial risk we should take beyond the, again, $2.8 trillion we have already spent in the first four bills. We have to be sure, at a minimum, that every new dollar is spent as wisely as possible, so it is as targeted as possible. Even overlooking the massive $3 trillion price tag, by the way, the House bill also focuses on some things that just seem unrelated to this crisis. For example, the House spends $136 billion on repealing the cap on the State and local tax deduction. There is a deduction, but it is capped right now. By the way, this $136 billion policy they have in their bill would deliver half of its benefits--50 percent of its tax benefits to the top 1 percent of taxpayers. Tell me how that is related to the coronavirus. To put that in some context, we can use that same amount of money--the $136 billion--to provide almost 2 million more PPP loans to small businesses that need it most: movie theaters, bowling alleys, restaurants, bars. There are also provisions that would force States to adopt broad changes in their election laws regardless of whether they want to. Election law has always been in the province of the States, but that is in this legislation. They also want to raise taxes on employers. Bad time to raise taxes. We want employers to stay in business because they are the ones who create the jobs. They also want to help cannabis growers, which I think is interesting. Cannabis is mentioned dozens of times in the legislation. They also want $50 million, as an example, for environmental justice grants. What does that have to do with the coronavirus Once more of the existing funds are delivered--in other words, as I said earlier, of the first four bills, only about half of it has even gone to the intended recipients. Once more of these existing funds are delivered and we know more about what is working, what is not working, and where the needs are, I suspect more funds will be needed. They will probably be needed for the healthcare side of this--for testing, as an example--and that is probably money well spent. There probably needs to be more flexibility, as the Senator from Louisiana just talked about. I believe there does need to be more flexibility. I also believe we need to find out, once the money goes to the local communities, what their budgets look like. Do they need more money to be able to continue to provide police protection, firefighters' salaries, and EMS services? We don't know that yet. How can we know it when the money hasn't even gone down yet? In Ohio, not one penny is gone except for the amount that went directly to the largest five counties and the one large city. But the part that went to the State hasn't even gone down to the local communities, and that is happening all over the country. We need more information to be able to know how much of this new spending is necessary. But again, even with all the new spending, this new $3 trillion House bill does very little to do something else really important in the next bill, which is help get the economy moving. Again, it raises taxes on businesses. It does some other things that have nothing to do with the coronavirus. What it doesn't do is it doesn't provide the stimulus you would hope would be in the next bill we are going to pass because that is what everybody is looking for right now. How do you do something here in Washington to make it easier to create jobs, make it easier to invest, make it easier for small businesses to get back on their feet? Much of what we did in the first four bills was really a rescue package, and it was necessary. People had lost their jobs for no reason that they could do anything about. It wasn't their fault--36 million Americans. We had to do something to shore that up--the direct payments, unemployment insurance, and other things. We had to help small businesses with the PPP program to ensure they weren't going to close their doors, some forever. Those were more rescue packages to get us through the storm, to weather the storm. Now we have to figure out how we do something to actually get this economy moving. That ought to be the goal because there is a limit to how much Federal tax dollars can be relied on to subsidize the economy. The better way is to get the economy moving, get revenues flowing again, and reopen, therefore, our hospitals and schools. Hospitals can get more revenue if they can reopen and do more procedures, and they can keep from either shutting their doors or relying on the Federal taxpayer for more and more subsidies. Getting back to work is critical, and we have to do it in a safe way, and we can. We have to use social distancing smart practices. We have to be sure we have the testing. I agree with all that. But any new legislation that Congress considers has to include measures that are going to help get people back into the workforce safely and get this economy moving again. I think that should include some tax incentives for investment and jobs. I think it should include some targeted infrastructure investments to create good jobs and also economic benefits that come from the right kind of infrastructure. I think one place to start is Federal highway projects. We need to pass that bill around here. Also, there are a bunch of State highway projects that would normally be funded by the State gas tax. Because we aren't driving nearly as much, the State gas tax has plummeted. In the State of Ohio, for instance, there are a lot of greatprojects out there that have gone through all the process. They have been vetted, and they have gone through a merit-based process. They are ready to go. In other words, they are shovel-ready. Yet the State is not going to have enough money to pay for them. So rather than sending the money to the States, how about sending some money directly to these infrastructure projects? Good jobs. Economic benefits. The analysis is, in the right kind of infrastructure investments, you spend a dollar and you get back more than a dollar in terms of revenue from the economic benefit. That is the sort of thing I think should be in this next package to help get the economy back on its feet. Right now, I am told by small businesses that one of the biggest barriers to getting the economy going is the unemployment insurance provisions that were passed as part of the CARES Act back in March. This is what I am hearing from small business owners all around Ohio--that the additional unemployment insurance benefits in the CARES Act, which allow individuals at or below the average income to receive more in unemployment than they could get at work, is a disincentive to work Of course, again, we needed to act to make sure people who lost their jobs through no fault of they own could get by while government at every level effectively pumped the brakes on the economy to better withstand the health crisis. In other words, people lost their jobs because the government said: You can't go to work. At the same time, it was not the best solution to provide a flat $600 increase in benefits to everybody, which is on top of the State unemployment insurance benefits, and that is what we did. That was the proposal here that was passed. That continues, by the way, until July 31. Wage replacement for people making at or below the average income level would have been a good and generous approach--in other words, saying: If you make up to whatever the wage average is in your State--$52,000 a year, $48,000 a year, or $58,000 a year--you get full wage replacement. But that is not what this is. The $600 on top of the State benefit, which is, on average, $360 probably, puts you up near $1,000 a week. That is more than wage replacement for people who make less than the average wage. Regardless of how you feel about the $600-per-week Federal increase, we are in a very different situation now than we were 2 months ago when we passed it. Back then, remember, we were encouraging people to stay home and not to go to work because that was the time period when we were shutting things down and we were giving stay-at-home orders. So it made much more sense to have an unemployment insurance system that actually would encourage people to stay home. Now we are reopening all around the country, and, small business people are telling me: I would like to get started again, but I can't get the employees. Some say: Well, you can go to that unemployment insurance office and say ``I have a job,'' and then, under the State's rules, they have to tell these people ``You are no longer under UI, and you have to go back to work.'' That is true, but, one, the unemployment insurance systems are overwhelmed. They tell me that really is not something they have the capability of doing right now. They are overwhelmed. They have never seen these kinds of numbers ever. Secondly, a lot of employers don't want to do that, and I get it. Their employees are making a lot more money, in some cases, on unemployment insurance than they can in their place of business, and they are just hesitant to tell them to come back and make less money. I do think there is a role for us to help make that happen and do it in a smart way. Things are different in other respects too. Not only is the economy starting to reopen around the country, but it is being done in a much safer manner. Why? Because we have a lot more testing, and that is good. We need to do a lot more, by the way. Ohio has gone from about 3,700 tests per day a few weeks ago to over 10,000 tests a day now. Soon it will be over 20,000 tests a day in a couple of weeks, they say. That is good. We also have more PPE, personal protective gear, and that is important because if you reopen--say you run a factory. You want people to have the protective gear they need to keep them safe. Also, we finally have some anti-viral medications coming online, thank goodness. Remdesivir is the first one approved by the FDA. It is now in Ohio, my own State, and other States. People are using it. That is great. That gives people more comfort in being able to go back to work more safely. It is time to start to transition from thinking about helping people get by and helping to encourage them to stay home through unemployment to thinking about how we can get people back into the workforce safely so we can get this economy, our small businesses, our hospitals, our colleges and universities, back on track. We should also want to help people get back to work because that is good for everybody. It is where most people get their healthcare--from work, from their employer. We want to get them back to that. It is where most people get their retirement, their 401(k). Not everybody offers it, but if you have one, you are probably getting it from work. It is good to get people back to work and connected with their benefits. It is also good to get people returning to a safe workplace because that is what most people want to do. They want to go back to work. They don't want to stay on unemployment insurance. Yes, it pays more for many Americans, but they would rather be at work. The dignity and self-respect for work is real. It gives meaning to your life. I think we need to take a hard look at this flat $600 increase in the unemployment benefits and ask ourselves whether it is really in the best interest of those workers, of our businesses. Is it really the best system to have it in place when we are trying to get people to get back to work? Again, this additional $600 benefit on top of the $360 average the States have means that unless you are making more than $50,000--or in some States, $60,000 a year--it is more advantageous to be on unemployment insurance than to go back to work. A recent study by the American Action Forum and the University of Chicago says that between 60 and 70 percent of individuals on unemployment are making more than they did in their prior job--60 to 70 percent. Further, for about 20 percent of wage earners, they say, on average, they are making double on unemployment insurance what they made in the workforce. So they say that for the bottom 20 percent of wage earners, on average, they are making double on unemployment insurance. Again, people needed the help. They needed direct payments, and they needed the UI help. A lot of people lost their jobs and had no income coming in just to put food on the table, pay the rent, and pay their car payment. Some people used this UI, even though it was more than they were making before, to help with healthcare. That is important. But isn't the best thing to do is to get people back to work? We need to continue to help people during this time who have lost their jobs, no question. Not every business is ready to reopen, by the way, and the employees who had to be let go by some businesses certainly shouldn't be punished for that. At the same time, we have to ask ourselves whether there is a way we can combine that need with the need to actually get people back to work as we reopen. I think there is. Specifically, I would propose that instead of keeping in place the additional $600 of the Federal benefit for people on unemployment between now and July 31, let's shift some of those Federal dollars to a back-to-work bonus--a program where you let people take some of that $600 with them to work. I propose $450 a week. Others have different numbers, probably. They think that is too much, or they think it is too little. I chose $450 per week because that represents the amount that would be needed to make a person making the average minimum wage better off in the workforce than on unemployment. When you take the minimum wages around the country, on average, you take $450 a week with you to work. That means that you would be making a little bit more in the workforce than you would be on unemployment. What is more, this return-to-work bonus would put additional cash in the hands of individuals who lost their jobs due to the health crisis, which would provide additional stimulus to the economy, which is experiencing historic declines in consumer spending. This incentive for people to get back into the workforce to get our economy running again is exactly the kind of policy we should all want. Instead, I will tell you that as for the $3 trillion House bill we talked about earlier, all it does is to propose extending the $600 per month from the end of its expiration at the end of July into the beginning of next year. We talked earlier about how the next package--whatever it is--ought to encourage the economy to get moving again, right? The House bill doesn't do that in a lot of respects we talked about. But, specifically, on unemployment insurance, what it says is, let's continue this policy of making it harder for people to get back to work. It will ensure that that 60 or 70 percent of the workforce that the study showed are making more on unemployment insurance would be better off staying on the unemployment rolls. By the way, it is also another $300 billion of taxpayer spending in this $3 trillion bill. I don't think it is going to move our country forward. It is going to make it even harder to get back on track. By the way, our back-to-work bonus also benefits taxpayers. So instead of $300 billion in additional funding that is going to go into the House bill for unemployment insurance, if we assume that States would have trouble enforcing their UI laws, which we talked about earlier, and that individuals would choose unemployment over returning to work, even if 25 percent of those who were on unemployment insurance today chose to take advantage of this $450 bonus--and I think a lot will; I think a lot more than that will, but let's be conservative, and let's say that just 25 percent take advantage of it--that will result in tens of billions of dollars of savings to the taxpayer. Think about it. For the State, they will not have the unemployment insurance benefit that they are providing because the person will be at work. That is good. And for the Federal Government, the $600 is reduced to $450. So that enables savings to the taxpayer. It enables people to get back to work. It allows our small businesses to be able to reopen. It is a solution that I think Republicans and Democrats alike can get behind. Let's continue to help the people who can't return to the workplace through no fault of their own, but let's also remember that the American people right now are looking to us here in Congress to come together on a bipartisan basis to put in place policies that will actually help move us forward in this crisis, get back to normalcy, get back to work safely, and get our economy back on the historically strong footing it had here only a few months ago. Back in February, we had the 19th straight month of wage increases of over 3 percent, most of which was going to lower income and middle-income workers. We had unemployment tied with the 50-year low. Unemployment was low then. It is incredibly high now. To get back to that, we have to put some more policies in place, and I believe the back-to-work bonus is exactly that. It will not solve everything, but it will help people get back into jobs, and it will send a clear message that Congress is looking forward and providing a positive path forward for workers, for small businesses, and for taxpayers. Thank you. I yield the floor
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. PORTMAN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2544
| null | 689
|
formal
|
the Fed
| null |
antisemitic
|
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor to talk about how Congress can do a better job in responding to the coronavirus pandemic that has gripped our country. I just thought that debate was great, something we just heard a moment ago about what we should do going forward. This crisis is unlike anything we have ever seen. I mean, it has devastated so many families. It has turned our lives upside down. It has put an enormous strain on our healthcare system; and our frontline healthcare workers, our researchers, our first responders are working around the clock to help patients and look for treatments. For the past couple of months, every American has been asked to do his or her part through social distancing, through doing smart things like wearing masks, like being sure that we are doing all we can within our home, within our workplace, and out in public to stop the spread of the dangerous virus. I think these have helped. I think these measures have made a difference, and I think we are in a better place by most metrics on the public health danger. I just saw the numbers from Ohio a moment ago here, and we have fewer new positive cases today than we have had over the past week or the past few weeks on average, and so we are beginning to make progress, but it has come at an enormous cost to our economy, and I would say even at an enormous cost to our culture and our society. Since the crisis began a couple of months ago, more than 36 million Americans have lost their jobs or filed for unemployment. Some estimates show that we could potentially hit a 25-percent unemployment rate before this is over. I think we probably will. By the way, that would match the worst of our country's unemployment that we have ever seen, and that would be during the Great Depression. That is where we are headed. Some small businesses have had to close their doors; others are teetering right on the brink of bankruptcy. Hospitals have been closed for needed procedures like mammograms and cancer screenings. More are being missed every day, and basic healthcare is at risk. So that is one consequence that we don't always focus on, but our healthcare system has had to respond to the coronavirus appropriately. But there is a balance here, and the result has been we have had other healthcare needs that have gone unmet. Without that revenue, by the way, from surgeries--so-called elective surgeries, although some aren't very elective, like they are necessary surgeries for a back or a knee or something like that--many hospitals now are in very deep financial trouble because that is how they make most of their money. Colleges and universities, of course, are losing revenue, and children are out of school, which is not a good thing because our kids, many of whom are not able to get the same help at home that they can get at school are falling behind. We have also got to acknowledge the impacts of isolation on people's mental health, on substance abuse. I talked to an individual earlier today who focuses a lot on human trafficking, an area I have worked a lot in, and he is talking about the increase he has seen in domestic violence and human trafficking and the calls that have increased, the number of suicides. This is all troubling. This kind of a crisis, therefore, requires swift and decisive action to ensure that we have got the resources and the help to be able to respond to both the healthcare crisis, which we have to address on the coronavirus front, but also on the economic and the broader societal issues we talked about here and how it impacts us and the rest of our lives. It is a tough balance. I think, for the most part, Congress and the Trump administration have done that. They have responded swiftly and correctly with major new legislation. We came together here in Congress, on a bipartisan basis, to pass legislation already that has addressed the healthcare crisis the virus has caused. We have also passed legislation that has helped the economic crisis caused by government at all levels effectively pumping the brakes on the economy. The legislation that has been enacted, of course, isn't perfect. It is thousands of pages, and it is now four different bills that have been passed already. I think it was necessary for us to act quickly, in a unified manner, and on a bipartisan basis to get stuff done around here. By the way, that bipartisanship has been a welcome change because that is not typical for this place. So far, on each of the 4 pieces of legislation we passed to respond to the challenges of this pandemic, an average of 500 of the 535 Members of both the House and Senate have voted in favor of passage. That is how bipartisan it has been. Five hundred of the 535, on average, have voted yes on these 4 pieces of legislation. These are not small bills. Combined, the funds provided by these first four rescue packages total about $2.8 trillion. That is $2.8 trillion--$2,800 billion. Phase 3 of the CARES Act alone--the most recent one we passed--is about $2.2 trillion in resources. That is an unprecedented amount of spending. It has never been done before. It has certainly never been done in such a short period of time. Now Congress is talking about a fifth rescue package. The fifth rescue package that is being talked about--it has already passed the House of Representatives. It is being talked about even though--and this might surprise you--only about half of the $2.8 trillion in the first four packages has actually been disbursed. Think about that. Only about half of the money in the first four legislative projects that we have undertaken here has actually gone out the door to the intended recipients. Yet we are talking about another package. For example, the Paycheck Protection Program to help small businesses stay afloat still has about 25 percent of its original capacity that hasn't gone out, about $160 billion. Well below halfof the funding--the $175 billion that Congress provided to hospitals has yet to be sent out under the Provider Relief Fund. Less than half of the healthcare dollars have even gone out the door. Of the roughly $450 billion that the CARES Act gave to Treasury to unlock the Federal Reserve lending facilities, less than $40 billion of that has been operational. That is right--less than 10 percent of the money designated to provide direct lending to businesses of all sizes so they can stay in business and hire people has been sent out. So even though about half the money from the CARES Act hasn't even been spent--and we still don't have a good handle, of course, on how the money that has been sent out is being spent--Democrats in the House have gone ahead and passed a new rescue package. In many respects, it is a wish list of Democratic priorities that has been talked about here on the floor. Some are related to the coronavirus, and some are not. It passed by a near-party line vote. I think one Republican voted yes and more than a dozen Democrats--more moderate Democrats--voted no. Again, this is a $3 trillion package--$3,000 billion. That is more than the total spending of all four of the previous coronavirus bills. So all four of the previous combined are less than the spending that the House is recommending for the fifth coronavirus bill. It is actually also a lot more money than Congress would normally appropriate in an entire fiscal year. It is about half of what we just appropriated from the fiscal year we are in, in one bill--in one bill. I am sorry; it is twice as much as Congress appropriated for the current 12-month period we are in. So the appropriations for this fiscal year, 2020, are less than half of what the House is now proposing to spend in one bill. I think, you know, we have to be very cautious, and we have to be sure it is the right amount of money going out because it is a huge and unprecedented spending package. Our annual deficit here in the Congress is already projected to be over $1 trillion. We were already running a large deficit. By the way, it has only been at that level four times in the history of our country. So the $1 trillion was already viewed by many of us, including me, to be an unacceptably high number for our annual deficit. Now the estimate is that this year's annual deficit will be between $3.7 trillion and $4.2 trillion--mind-boggling. We have just never had deficits like these before. Of course, that adds to the $23 trillion national debt, which is already at record levels. We are entering dangerous, unchartered waters here from a fiscal point of view. Most economists agree that this increases the chance of a fiscal and therefore a financial crisis that would follow. Of course, we have to respond to this immediate crisis. Again, I voted for the first four bills. I believe it was necessary to act and act quickly, but I also believe there are real limits as to how much financial risk we should take beyond the, again, $2.8 trillion we have already spent in the first four bills. We have to be sure, at a minimum, that every new dollar is spent as wisely as possible, so it is as targeted as possible. Even overlooking the massive $3 trillion price tag, by the way, the House bill also focuses on some things that just seem unrelated to this crisis. For example, the House spends $136 billion on repealing the cap on the State and local tax deduction. There is a deduction, but it is capped right now. By the way, this $136 billion policy they have in their bill would deliver half of its benefits--50 percent of its tax benefits to the top 1 percent of taxpayers. Tell me how that is related to the coronavirus. To put that in some context, we can use that same amount of money--the $136 billion--to provide almost 2 million more PPP loans to small businesses that need it most: movie theaters, bowling alleys, restaurants, bars. There are also provisions that would force States to adopt broad changes in their election laws regardless of whether they want to. Election law has always been in the province of the States, but that is in this legislation. They also want to raise taxes on employers. Bad time to raise taxes. We want employers to stay in business because they are the ones who create the jobs. They also want to help cannabis growers, which I think is interesting. Cannabis is mentioned dozens of times in the legislation. They also want $50 million, as an example, for environmental justice grants. What does that have to do with the coronavirus Once more of the existing funds are delivered--in other words, as I said earlier, of the first four bills, only about half of it has even gone to the intended recipients. Once more of these existing funds are delivered and we know more about what is working, what is not working, and where the needs are, I suspect more funds will be needed. They will probably be needed for the healthcare side of this--for testing, as an example--and that is probably money well spent. There probably needs to be more flexibility, as the Senator from Louisiana just talked about. I believe there does need to be more flexibility. I also believe we need to find out, once the money goes to the local communities, what their budgets look like. Do they need more money to be able to continue to provide police protection, firefighters' salaries, and EMS services? We don't know that yet. How can we know it when the money hasn't even gone down yet? In Ohio, not one penny is gone except for the amount that went directly to the largest five counties and the one large city. But the part that went to the State hasn't even gone down to the local communities, and that is happening all over the country. We need more information to be able to know how much of this new spending is necessary. But again, even with all the new spending, this new $3 trillion House bill does very little to do something else really important in the next bill, which is help get the economy moving. Again, it raises taxes on businesses. It does some other things that have nothing to do with the coronavirus. What it doesn't do is it doesn't provide the stimulus you would hope would be in the next bill we are going to pass because that is what everybody is looking for right now. How do you do something here in Washington to make it easier to create jobs, make it easier to invest, make it easier for small businesses to get back on their feet? Much of what we did in the first four bills was really a rescue package, and it was necessary. People had lost their jobs for no reason that they could do anything about. It wasn't their fault--36 million Americans. We had to do something to shore that up--the direct payments, unemployment insurance, and other things. We had to help small businesses with the PPP program to ensure they weren't going to close their doors, some forever. Those were more rescue packages to get us through the storm, to weather the storm. Now we have to figure out how we do something to actually get this economy moving. That ought to be the goal because there is a limit to how much Federal tax dollars can be relied on to subsidize the economy. The better way is to get the economy moving, get revenues flowing again, and reopen, therefore, our hospitals and schools. Hospitals can get more revenue if they can reopen and do more procedures, and they can keep from either shutting their doors or relying on the Federal taxpayer for more and more subsidies. Getting back to work is critical, and we have to do it in a safe way, and we can. We have to use social distancing smart practices. We have to be sure we have the testing. I agree with all that. But any new legislation that Congress considers has to include measures that are going to help get people back into the workforce safely and get this economy moving again. I think that should include some tax incentives for investment and jobs. I think it should include some targeted infrastructure investments to create good jobs and also economic benefits that come from the right kind of infrastructure. I think one place to start is Federal highway projects. We need to pass that bill around here. Also, there are a bunch of State highway projects that would normally be funded by the State gas tax. Because we aren't driving nearly as much, the State gas tax has plummeted. In the State of Ohio, for instance, there are a lot of greatprojects out there that have gone through all the process. They have been vetted, and they have gone through a merit-based process. They are ready to go. In other words, they are shovel-ready. Yet the State is not going to have enough money to pay for them. So rather than sending the money to the States, how about sending some money directly to these infrastructure projects? Good jobs. Economic benefits. The analysis is, in the right kind of infrastructure investments, you spend a dollar and you get back more than a dollar in terms of revenue from the economic benefit. That is the sort of thing I think should be in this next package to help get the economy back on its feet. Right now, I am told by small businesses that one of the biggest barriers to getting the economy going is the unemployment insurance provisions that were passed as part of the CARES Act back in March. This is what I am hearing from small business owners all around Ohio--that the additional unemployment insurance benefits in the CARES Act, which allow individuals at or below the average income to receive more in unemployment than they could get at work, is a disincentive to work Of course, again, we needed to act to make sure people who lost their jobs through no fault of they own could get by while government at every level effectively pumped the brakes on the economy to better withstand the health crisis. In other words, people lost their jobs because the government said: You can't go to work. At the same time, it was not the best solution to provide a flat $600 increase in benefits to everybody, which is on top of the State unemployment insurance benefits, and that is what we did. That was the proposal here that was passed. That continues, by the way, until July 31. Wage replacement for people making at or below the average income level would have been a good and generous approach--in other words, saying: If you make up to whatever the wage average is in your State--$52,000 a year, $48,000 a year, or $58,000 a year--you get full wage replacement. But that is not what this is. The $600 on top of the State benefit, which is, on average, $360 probably, puts you up near $1,000 a week. That is more than wage replacement for people who make less than the average wage. Regardless of how you feel about the $600-per-week Federal increase, we are in a very different situation now than we were 2 months ago when we passed it. Back then, remember, we were encouraging people to stay home and not to go to work because that was the time period when we were shutting things down and we were giving stay-at-home orders. So it made much more sense to have an unemployment insurance system that actually would encourage people to stay home. Now we are reopening all around the country, and, small business people are telling me: I would like to get started again, but I can't get the employees. Some say: Well, you can go to that unemployment insurance office and say ``I have a job,'' and then, under the State's rules, they have to tell these people ``You are no longer under UI, and you have to go back to work.'' That is true, but, one, the unemployment insurance systems are overwhelmed. They tell me that really is not something they have the capability of doing right now. They are overwhelmed. They have never seen these kinds of numbers ever. Secondly, a lot of employers don't want to do that, and I get it. Their employees are making a lot more money, in some cases, on unemployment insurance than they can in their place of business, and they are just hesitant to tell them to come back and make less money. I do think there is a role for us to help make that happen and do it in a smart way. Things are different in other respects too. Not only is the economy starting to reopen around the country, but it is being done in a much safer manner. Why? Because we have a lot more testing, and that is good. We need to do a lot more, by the way. Ohio has gone from about 3,700 tests per day a few weeks ago to over 10,000 tests a day now. Soon it will be over 20,000 tests a day in a couple of weeks, they say. That is good. We also have more PPE, personal protective gear, and that is important because if you reopen--say you run a factory. You want people to have the protective gear they need to keep them safe. Also, we finally have some anti-viral medications coming online, thank goodness. Remdesivir is the first one approved by the FDA. It is now in Ohio, my own State, and other States. People are using it. That is great. That gives people more comfort in being able to go back to work more safely. It is time to start to transition from thinking about helping people get by and helping to encourage them to stay home through unemployment to thinking about how we can get people back into the workforce safely so we can get this economy, our small businesses, our hospitals, our colleges and universities, back on track. We should also want to help people get back to work because that is good for everybody. It is where most people get their healthcare--from work, from their employer. We want to get them back to that. It is where most people get their retirement, their 401(k). Not everybody offers it, but if you have one, you are probably getting it from work. It is good to get people back to work and connected with their benefits. It is also good to get people returning to a safe workplace because that is what most people want to do. They want to go back to work. They don't want to stay on unemployment insurance. Yes, it pays more for many Americans, but they would rather be at work. The dignity and self-respect for work is real. It gives meaning to your life. I think we need to take a hard look at this flat $600 increase in the unemployment benefits and ask ourselves whether it is really in the best interest of those workers, of our businesses. Is it really the best system to have it in place when we are trying to get people to get back to work? Again, this additional $600 benefit on top of the $360 average the States have means that unless you are making more than $50,000--or in some States, $60,000 a year--it is more advantageous to be on unemployment insurance than to go back to work. A recent study by the American Action Forum and the University of Chicago says that between 60 and 70 percent of individuals on unemployment are making more than they did in their prior job--60 to 70 percent. Further, for about 20 percent of wage earners, they say, on average, they are making double on unemployment insurance what they made in the workforce. So they say that for the bottom 20 percent of wage earners, on average, they are making double on unemployment insurance. Again, people needed the help. They needed direct payments, and they needed the UI help. A lot of people lost their jobs and had no income coming in just to put food on the table, pay the rent, and pay their car payment. Some people used this UI, even though it was more than they were making before, to help with healthcare. That is important. But isn't the best thing to do is to get people back to work? We need to continue to help people during this time who have lost their jobs, no question. Not every business is ready to reopen, by the way, and the employees who had to be let go by some businesses certainly shouldn't be punished for that. At the same time, we have to ask ourselves whether there is a way we can combine that need with the need to actually get people back to work as we reopen. I think there is. Specifically, I would propose that instead of keeping in place the additional $600 of the Federal benefit for people on unemployment between now and July 31, let's shift some of those Federal dollars to a back-to-work bonus--a program where you let people take some of that $600 with them to work. I propose $450 a week. Others have different numbers, probably. They think that is too much, or they think it is too little. I chose $450 per week because that represents the amount that would be needed to make a person making the average minimum wage better off in the workforce than on unemployment. When you take the minimum wages around the country, on average, you take $450 a week with you to work. That means that you would be making a little bit more in the workforce than you would be on unemployment. What is more, this return-to-work bonus would put additional cash in the hands of individuals who lost their jobs due to the health crisis, which would provide additional stimulus to the economy, which is experiencing historic declines in consumer spending. This incentive for people to get back into the workforce to get our economy running again is exactly the kind of policy we should all want. Instead, I will tell you that as for the $3 trillion House bill we talked about earlier, all it does is to propose extending the $600 per month from the end of its expiration at the end of July into the beginning of next year. We talked earlier about how the next package--whatever it is--ought to encourage the economy to get moving again, right? The House bill doesn't do that in a lot of respects we talked about. But, specifically, on unemployment insurance, what it says is, let's continue this policy of making it harder for people to get back to work. It will ensure that that 60 or 70 percent of the workforce that the study showed are making more on unemployment insurance would be better off staying on the unemployment rolls. By the way, it is also another $300 billion of taxpayer spending in this $3 trillion bill. I don't think it is going to move our country forward. It is going to make it even harder to get back on track. By the way, our back-to-work bonus also benefits taxpayers. So instead of $300 billion in additional funding that is going to go into the House bill for unemployment insurance, if we assume that States would have trouble enforcing their UI laws, which we talked about earlier, and that individuals would choose unemployment over returning to work, even if 25 percent of those who were on unemployment insurance today chose to take advantage of this $450 bonus--and I think a lot will; I think a lot more than that will, but let's be conservative, and let's say that just 25 percent take advantage of it--that will result in tens of billions of dollars of savings to the taxpayer. Think about it. For the State, they will not have the unemployment insurance benefit that they are providing because the person will be at work. That is good. And for the Federal Government, the $600 is reduced to $450. So that enables savings to the taxpayer. It enables people to get back to work. It allows our small businesses to be able to reopen. It is a solution that I think Republicans and Democrats alike can get behind. Let's continue to help the people who can't return to the workplace through no fault of their own, but let's also remember that the American people right now are looking to us here in Congress to come together on a bipartisan basis to put in place policies that will actually help move us forward in this crisis, get back to normalcy, get back to work safely, and get our economy back on the historically strong footing it had here only a few months ago. Back in February, we had the 19th straight month of wage increases of over 3 percent, most of which was going to lower income and middle-income workers. We had unemployment tied with the 50-year low. Unemployment was low then. It is incredibly high now. To get back to that, we have to put some more policies in place, and I believe the back-to-work bonus is exactly that. It will not solve everything, but it will help people get back into jobs, and it will send a clear message that Congress is looking forward and providing a positive path forward for workers, for small businesses, and for taxpayers. Thank you. I yield the floor
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. PORTMAN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2544
| null | 690
|
formal
|
Chicago
| null |
racist
|
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor to talk about how Congress can do a better job in responding to the coronavirus pandemic that has gripped our country. I just thought that debate was great, something we just heard a moment ago about what we should do going forward. This crisis is unlike anything we have ever seen. I mean, it has devastated so many families. It has turned our lives upside down. It has put an enormous strain on our healthcare system; and our frontline healthcare workers, our researchers, our first responders are working around the clock to help patients and look for treatments. For the past couple of months, every American has been asked to do his or her part through social distancing, through doing smart things like wearing masks, like being sure that we are doing all we can within our home, within our workplace, and out in public to stop the spread of the dangerous virus. I think these have helped. I think these measures have made a difference, and I think we are in a better place by most metrics on the public health danger. I just saw the numbers from Ohio a moment ago here, and we have fewer new positive cases today than we have had over the past week or the past few weeks on average, and so we are beginning to make progress, but it has come at an enormous cost to our economy, and I would say even at an enormous cost to our culture and our society. Since the crisis began a couple of months ago, more than 36 million Americans have lost their jobs or filed for unemployment. Some estimates show that we could potentially hit a 25-percent unemployment rate before this is over. I think we probably will. By the way, that would match the worst of our country's unemployment that we have ever seen, and that would be during the Great Depression. That is where we are headed. Some small businesses have had to close their doors; others are teetering right on the brink of bankruptcy. Hospitals have been closed for needed procedures like mammograms and cancer screenings. More are being missed every day, and basic healthcare is at risk. So that is one consequence that we don't always focus on, but our healthcare system has had to respond to the coronavirus appropriately. But there is a balance here, and the result has been we have had other healthcare needs that have gone unmet. Without that revenue, by the way, from surgeries--so-called elective surgeries, although some aren't very elective, like they are necessary surgeries for a back or a knee or something like that--many hospitals now are in very deep financial trouble because that is how they make most of their money. Colleges and universities, of course, are losing revenue, and children are out of school, which is not a good thing because our kids, many of whom are not able to get the same help at home that they can get at school are falling behind. We have also got to acknowledge the impacts of isolation on people's mental health, on substance abuse. I talked to an individual earlier today who focuses a lot on human trafficking, an area I have worked a lot in, and he is talking about the increase he has seen in domestic violence and human trafficking and the calls that have increased, the number of suicides. This is all troubling. This kind of a crisis, therefore, requires swift and decisive action to ensure that we have got the resources and the help to be able to respond to both the healthcare crisis, which we have to address on the coronavirus front, but also on the economic and the broader societal issues we talked about here and how it impacts us and the rest of our lives. It is a tough balance. I think, for the most part, Congress and the Trump administration have done that. They have responded swiftly and correctly with major new legislation. We came together here in Congress, on a bipartisan basis, to pass legislation already that has addressed the healthcare crisis the virus has caused. We have also passed legislation that has helped the economic crisis caused by government at all levels effectively pumping the brakes on the economy. The legislation that has been enacted, of course, isn't perfect. It is thousands of pages, and it is now four different bills that have been passed already. I think it was necessary for us to act quickly, in a unified manner, and on a bipartisan basis to get stuff done around here. By the way, that bipartisanship has been a welcome change because that is not typical for this place. So far, on each of the 4 pieces of legislation we passed to respond to the challenges of this pandemic, an average of 500 of the 535 Members of both the House and Senate have voted in favor of passage. That is how bipartisan it has been. Five hundred of the 535, on average, have voted yes on these 4 pieces of legislation. These are not small bills. Combined, the funds provided by these first four rescue packages total about $2.8 trillion. That is $2.8 trillion--$2,800 billion. Phase 3 of the CARES Act alone--the most recent one we passed--is about $2.2 trillion in resources. That is an unprecedented amount of spending. It has never been done before. It has certainly never been done in such a short period of time. Now Congress is talking about a fifth rescue package. The fifth rescue package that is being talked about--it has already passed the House of Representatives. It is being talked about even though--and this might surprise you--only about half of the $2.8 trillion in the first four packages has actually been disbursed. Think about that. Only about half of the money in the first four legislative projects that we have undertaken here has actually gone out the door to the intended recipients. Yet we are talking about another package. For example, the Paycheck Protection Program to help small businesses stay afloat still has about 25 percent of its original capacity that hasn't gone out, about $160 billion. Well below halfof the funding--the $175 billion that Congress provided to hospitals has yet to be sent out under the Provider Relief Fund. Less than half of the healthcare dollars have even gone out the door. Of the roughly $450 billion that the CARES Act gave to Treasury to unlock the Federal Reserve lending facilities, less than $40 billion of that has been operational. That is right--less than 10 percent of the money designated to provide direct lending to businesses of all sizes so they can stay in business and hire people has been sent out. So even though about half the money from the CARES Act hasn't even been spent--and we still don't have a good handle, of course, on how the money that has been sent out is being spent--Democrats in the House have gone ahead and passed a new rescue package. In many respects, it is a wish list of Democratic priorities that has been talked about here on the floor. Some are related to the coronavirus, and some are not. It passed by a near-party line vote. I think one Republican voted yes and more than a dozen Democrats--more moderate Democrats--voted no. Again, this is a $3 trillion package--$3,000 billion. That is more than the total spending of all four of the previous coronavirus bills. So all four of the previous combined are less than the spending that the House is recommending for the fifth coronavirus bill. It is actually also a lot more money than Congress would normally appropriate in an entire fiscal year. It is about half of what we just appropriated from the fiscal year we are in, in one bill--in one bill. I am sorry; it is twice as much as Congress appropriated for the current 12-month period we are in. So the appropriations for this fiscal year, 2020, are less than half of what the House is now proposing to spend in one bill. I think, you know, we have to be very cautious, and we have to be sure it is the right amount of money going out because it is a huge and unprecedented spending package. Our annual deficit here in the Congress is already projected to be over $1 trillion. We were already running a large deficit. By the way, it has only been at that level four times in the history of our country. So the $1 trillion was already viewed by many of us, including me, to be an unacceptably high number for our annual deficit. Now the estimate is that this year's annual deficit will be between $3.7 trillion and $4.2 trillion--mind-boggling. We have just never had deficits like these before. Of course, that adds to the $23 trillion national debt, which is already at record levels. We are entering dangerous, unchartered waters here from a fiscal point of view. Most economists agree that this increases the chance of a fiscal and therefore a financial crisis that would follow. Of course, we have to respond to this immediate crisis. Again, I voted for the first four bills. I believe it was necessary to act and act quickly, but I also believe there are real limits as to how much financial risk we should take beyond the, again, $2.8 trillion we have already spent in the first four bills. We have to be sure, at a minimum, that every new dollar is spent as wisely as possible, so it is as targeted as possible. Even overlooking the massive $3 trillion price tag, by the way, the House bill also focuses on some things that just seem unrelated to this crisis. For example, the House spends $136 billion on repealing the cap on the State and local tax deduction. There is a deduction, but it is capped right now. By the way, this $136 billion policy they have in their bill would deliver half of its benefits--50 percent of its tax benefits to the top 1 percent of taxpayers. Tell me how that is related to the coronavirus. To put that in some context, we can use that same amount of money--the $136 billion--to provide almost 2 million more PPP loans to small businesses that need it most: movie theaters, bowling alleys, restaurants, bars. There are also provisions that would force States to adopt broad changes in their election laws regardless of whether they want to. Election law has always been in the province of the States, but that is in this legislation. They also want to raise taxes on employers. Bad time to raise taxes. We want employers to stay in business because they are the ones who create the jobs. They also want to help cannabis growers, which I think is interesting. Cannabis is mentioned dozens of times in the legislation. They also want $50 million, as an example, for environmental justice grants. What does that have to do with the coronavirus Once more of the existing funds are delivered--in other words, as I said earlier, of the first four bills, only about half of it has even gone to the intended recipients. Once more of these existing funds are delivered and we know more about what is working, what is not working, and where the needs are, I suspect more funds will be needed. They will probably be needed for the healthcare side of this--for testing, as an example--and that is probably money well spent. There probably needs to be more flexibility, as the Senator from Louisiana just talked about. I believe there does need to be more flexibility. I also believe we need to find out, once the money goes to the local communities, what their budgets look like. Do they need more money to be able to continue to provide police protection, firefighters' salaries, and EMS services? We don't know that yet. How can we know it when the money hasn't even gone down yet? In Ohio, not one penny is gone except for the amount that went directly to the largest five counties and the one large city. But the part that went to the State hasn't even gone down to the local communities, and that is happening all over the country. We need more information to be able to know how much of this new spending is necessary. But again, even with all the new spending, this new $3 trillion House bill does very little to do something else really important in the next bill, which is help get the economy moving. Again, it raises taxes on businesses. It does some other things that have nothing to do with the coronavirus. What it doesn't do is it doesn't provide the stimulus you would hope would be in the next bill we are going to pass because that is what everybody is looking for right now. How do you do something here in Washington to make it easier to create jobs, make it easier to invest, make it easier for small businesses to get back on their feet? Much of what we did in the first four bills was really a rescue package, and it was necessary. People had lost their jobs for no reason that they could do anything about. It wasn't their fault--36 million Americans. We had to do something to shore that up--the direct payments, unemployment insurance, and other things. We had to help small businesses with the PPP program to ensure they weren't going to close their doors, some forever. Those were more rescue packages to get us through the storm, to weather the storm. Now we have to figure out how we do something to actually get this economy moving. That ought to be the goal because there is a limit to how much Federal tax dollars can be relied on to subsidize the economy. The better way is to get the economy moving, get revenues flowing again, and reopen, therefore, our hospitals and schools. Hospitals can get more revenue if they can reopen and do more procedures, and they can keep from either shutting their doors or relying on the Federal taxpayer for more and more subsidies. Getting back to work is critical, and we have to do it in a safe way, and we can. We have to use social distancing smart practices. We have to be sure we have the testing. I agree with all that. But any new legislation that Congress considers has to include measures that are going to help get people back into the workforce safely and get this economy moving again. I think that should include some tax incentives for investment and jobs. I think it should include some targeted infrastructure investments to create good jobs and also economic benefits that come from the right kind of infrastructure. I think one place to start is Federal highway projects. We need to pass that bill around here. Also, there are a bunch of State highway projects that would normally be funded by the State gas tax. Because we aren't driving nearly as much, the State gas tax has plummeted. In the State of Ohio, for instance, there are a lot of greatprojects out there that have gone through all the process. They have been vetted, and they have gone through a merit-based process. They are ready to go. In other words, they are shovel-ready. Yet the State is not going to have enough money to pay for them. So rather than sending the money to the States, how about sending some money directly to these infrastructure projects? Good jobs. Economic benefits. The analysis is, in the right kind of infrastructure investments, you spend a dollar and you get back more than a dollar in terms of revenue from the economic benefit. That is the sort of thing I think should be in this next package to help get the economy back on its feet. Right now, I am told by small businesses that one of the biggest barriers to getting the economy going is the unemployment insurance provisions that were passed as part of the CARES Act back in March. This is what I am hearing from small business owners all around Ohio--that the additional unemployment insurance benefits in the CARES Act, which allow individuals at or below the average income to receive more in unemployment than they could get at work, is a disincentive to work Of course, again, we needed to act to make sure people who lost their jobs through no fault of they own could get by while government at every level effectively pumped the brakes on the economy to better withstand the health crisis. In other words, people lost their jobs because the government said: You can't go to work. At the same time, it was not the best solution to provide a flat $600 increase in benefits to everybody, which is on top of the State unemployment insurance benefits, and that is what we did. That was the proposal here that was passed. That continues, by the way, until July 31. Wage replacement for people making at or below the average income level would have been a good and generous approach--in other words, saying: If you make up to whatever the wage average is in your State--$52,000 a year, $48,000 a year, or $58,000 a year--you get full wage replacement. But that is not what this is. The $600 on top of the State benefit, which is, on average, $360 probably, puts you up near $1,000 a week. That is more than wage replacement for people who make less than the average wage. Regardless of how you feel about the $600-per-week Federal increase, we are in a very different situation now than we were 2 months ago when we passed it. Back then, remember, we were encouraging people to stay home and not to go to work because that was the time period when we were shutting things down and we were giving stay-at-home orders. So it made much more sense to have an unemployment insurance system that actually would encourage people to stay home. Now we are reopening all around the country, and, small business people are telling me: I would like to get started again, but I can't get the employees. Some say: Well, you can go to that unemployment insurance office and say ``I have a job,'' and then, under the State's rules, they have to tell these people ``You are no longer under UI, and you have to go back to work.'' That is true, but, one, the unemployment insurance systems are overwhelmed. They tell me that really is not something they have the capability of doing right now. They are overwhelmed. They have never seen these kinds of numbers ever. Secondly, a lot of employers don't want to do that, and I get it. Their employees are making a lot more money, in some cases, on unemployment insurance than they can in their place of business, and they are just hesitant to tell them to come back and make less money. I do think there is a role for us to help make that happen and do it in a smart way. Things are different in other respects too. Not only is the economy starting to reopen around the country, but it is being done in a much safer manner. Why? Because we have a lot more testing, and that is good. We need to do a lot more, by the way. Ohio has gone from about 3,700 tests per day a few weeks ago to over 10,000 tests a day now. Soon it will be over 20,000 tests a day in a couple of weeks, they say. That is good. We also have more PPE, personal protective gear, and that is important because if you reopen--say you run a factory. You want people to have the protective gear they need to keep them safe. Also, we finally have some anti-viral medications coming online, thank goodness. Remdesivir is the first one approved by the FDA. It is now in Ohio, my own State, and other States. People are using it. That is great. That gives people more comfort in being able to go back to work more safely. It is time to start to transition from thinking about helping people get by and helping to encourage them to stay home through unemployment to thinking about how we can get people back into the workforce safely so we can get this economy, our small businesses, our hospitals, our colleges and universities, back on track. We should also want to help people get back to work because that is good for everybody. It is where most people get their healthcare--from work, from their employer. We want to get them back to that. It is where most people get their retirement, their 401(k). Not everybody offers it, but if you have one, you are probably getting it from work. It is good to get people back to work and connected with their benefits. It is also good to get people returning to a safe workplace because that is what most people want to do. They want to go back to work. They don't want to stay on unemployment insurance. Yes, it pays more for many Americans, but they would rather be at work. The dignity and self-respect for work is real. It gives meaning to your life. I think we need to take a hard look at this flat $600 increase in the unemployment benefits and ask ourselves whether it is really in the best interest of those workers, of our businesses. Is it really the best system to have it in place when we are trying to get people to get back to work? Again, this additional $600 benefit on top of the $360 average the States have means that unless you are making more than $50,000--or in some States, $60,000 a year--it is more advantageous to be on unemployment insurance than to go back to work. A recent study by the American Action Forum and the University of Chicago says that between 60 and 70 percent of individuals on unemployment are making more than they did in their prior job--60 to 70 percent. Further, for about 20 percent of wage earners, they say, on average, they are making double on unemployment insurance what they made in the workforce. So they say that for the bottom 20 percent of wage earners, on average, they are making double on unemployment insurance. Again, people needed the help. They needed direct payments, and they needed the UI help. A lot of people lost their jobs and had no income coming in just to put food on the table, pay the rent, and pay their car payment. Some people used this UI, even though it was more than they were making before, to help with healthcare. That is important. But isn't the best thing to do is to get people back to work? We need to continue to help people during this time who have lost their jobs, no question. Not every business is ready to reopen, by the way, and the employees who had to be let go by some businesses certainly shouldn't be punished for that. At the same time, we have to ask ourselves whether there is a way we can combine that need with the need to actually get people back to work as we reopen. I think there is. Specifically, I would propose that instead of keeping in place the additional $600 of the Federal benefit for people on unemployment between now and July 31, let's shift some of those Federal dollars to a back-to-work bonus--a program where you let people take some of that $600 with them to work. I propose $450 a week. Others have different numbers, probably. They think that is too much, or they think it is too little. I chose $450 per week because that represents the amount that would be needed to make a person making the average minimum wage better off in the workforce than on unemployment. When you take the minimum wages around the country, on average, you take $450 a week with you to work. That means that you would be making a little bit more in the workforce than you would be on unemployment. What is more, this return-to-work bonus would put additional cash in the hands of individuals who lost their jobs due to the health crisis, which would provide additional stimulus to the economy, which is experiencing historic declines in consumer spending. This incentive for people to get back into the workforce to get our economy running again is exactly the kind of policy we should all want. Instead, I will tell you that as for the $3 trillion House bill we talked about earlier, all it does is to propose extending the $600 per month from the end of its expiration at the end of July into the beginning of next year. We talked earlier about how the next package--whatever it is--ought to encourage the economy to get moving again, right? The House bill doesn't do that in a lot of respects we talked about. But, specifically, on unemployment insurance, what it says is, let's continue this policy of making it harder for people to get back to work. It will ensure that that 60 or 70 percent of the workforce that the study showed are making more on unemployment insurance would be better off staying on the unemployment rolls. By the way, it is also another $300 billion of taxpayer spending in this $3 trillion bill. I don't think it is going to move our country forward. It is going to make it even harder to get back on track. By the way, our back-to-work bonus also benefits taxpayers. So instead of $300 billion in additional funding that is going to go into the House bill for unemployment insurance, if we assume that States would have trouble enforcing their UI laws, which we talked about earlier, and that individuals would choose unemployment over returning to work, even if 25 percent of those who were on unemployment insurance today chose to take advantage of this $450 bonus--and I think a lot will; I think a lot more than that will, but let's be conservative, and let's say that just 25 percent take advantage of it--that will result in tens of billions of dollars of savings to the taxpayer. Think about it. For the State, they will not have the unemployment insurance benefit that they are providing because the person will be at work. That is good. And for the Federal Government, the $600 is reduced to $450. So that enables savings to the taxpayer. It enables people to get back to work. It allows our small businesses to be able to reopen. It is a solution that I think Republicans and Democrats alike can get behind. Let's continue to help the people who can't return to the workplace through no fault of their own, but let's also remember that the American people right now are looking to us here in Congress to come together on a bipartisan basis to put in place policies that will actually help move us forward in this crisis, get back to normalcy, get back to work safely, and get our economy back on the historically strong footing it had here only a few months ago. Back in February, we had the 19th straight month of wage increases of over 3 percent, most of which was going to lower income and middle-income workers. We had unemployment tied with the 50-year low. Unemployment was low then. It is incredibly high now. To get back to that, we have to put some more policies in place, and I believe the back-to-work bonus is exactly that. It will not solve everything, but it will help people get back into jobs, and it will send a clear message that Congress is looking forward and providing a positive path forward for workers, for small businesses, and for taxpayers. Thank you. I yield the floor
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. PORTMAN
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2544
| null | 691
|
formal
|
Detroit
| null |
racist
|
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today, I honor the life and achievements of Coach Shula, who passed away on May 4, 2020, at the age of 90. I am pleased the Senate passed a resolution honoring the Pro Football Hall of Fame coach, with the following: Honoring the life and achievement of Pro Football Hall of Fame Coach Donald Francis Shula and expressing condolences to his family on his passing. Whereas Coach Donald Francis Shula (referred to in this preamble as ``Coach Shula'') was born on January 4, 1930, and grew up in Painesville, Ohio; Whereas Coach Shula's father immigrated to the United States from Hungary; Whereas Coach Shula attended Harvey High School and later played collegiate football at John Carroll University; Whereas, in 1951, the Cleveland Browns selected Coach Shula in the ninth round of the National Football League (referred to in this preamble as the ``NFL'') draft as a defensive back; Whereas, in addition to playing for the Cleveland Browns, Coach Shula also played for the Baltimore Colts and the Washington Redskins; Whereas Coach Shula-- (1) began his coaching career at the University of Virginia; (2) also coached at the University of Kentucky; and (3) coached as a defensive coordinator for the Detroit Lions; Whereas, in 1963, Coach Shula became the youngest coach in the NFL when he took the head coaching position at the Baltimore Colts; Whereas, as the head coach of the Baltimore Colts, Coach Shula-- (1) compiled a record of 71 wins, 23 losses, and 4 ties; and (2) won the NFL championship in 1968; Whereas, in 1970, Coach Shula became the head coach of the Miami Dolphins (referred to in this preamble as the ``Dolphins''); Whereas Coach Shula remained the head coach of the Dolphins for 26 seasons, took the Dolphins to 5 Super Bowls, and led the Dolphins to victory in 2 of those Super Bowls; Whereas Coach Shula led the 1972 Dolphins team to a perfect season; Whereas, in Super Bowl VII, Coach Shula led the Dolphins to victory over the Washington Redskins with a score of 14 to 7; Whereas, in Super Bowl VIII, Coach Shula led the Dolphins, the reigning Super Bowl champions, to victory over the Minnesota Vikings with a score of 24 to 7; Whereas, after 33 years of coaching, Coach Shula retired from coaching in 1995 with the NFL record for most wins by a head coach, compiling a regular season record of 328 wins, 156 losses, and 6 ties and a postseason record of 19 wins and 17 losses; Whereas Coach Shula was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1997; Whereas, following his coaching days, Coach Shula-- (1) supported many charities; (2) gave generously to his local parish; and (3) established the Don Shula Foundation to assist with breast cancer research; and Whereas Coach Shula, a loving husband, father, grandfather, son, and brother, passed away on May 4, 2020, at 90 years of age: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes the life and achievements of Pro Football Hall of Fame Coach Donald Francis Shula (referred to in this resolution as ``Coach Shula''); (2) expresses condolences to the family of Coach Shula on his passing; and (3) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to-- (A) the family of Coach Shula; and (B) the Miami Dolphins.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. RUBIO
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2548-2
| null | 692
|
formal
|
Cleveland
| null |
racist
|
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today, I honor the life and achievements of Coach Shula, who passed away on May 4, 2020, at the age of 90. I am pleased the Senate passed a resolution honoring the Pro Football Hall of Fame coach, with the following: Honoring the life and achievement of Pro Football Hall of Fame Coach Donald Francis Shula and expressing condolences to his family on his passing. Whereas Coach Donald Francis Shula (referred to in this preamble as ``Coach Shula'') was born on January 4, 1930, and grew up in Painesville, Ohio; Whereas Coach Shula's father immigrated to the United States from Hungary; Whereas Coach Shula attended Harvey High School and later played collegiate football at John Carroll University; Whereas, in 1951, the Cleveland Browns selected Coach Shula in the ninth round of the National Football League (referred to in this preamble as the ``NFL'') draft as a defensive back; Whereas, in addition to playing for the Cleveland Browns, Coach Shula also played for the Baltimore Colts and the Washington Redskins; Whereas Coach Shula-- (1) began his coaching career at the University of Virginia; (2) also coached at the University of Kentucky; and (3) coached as a defensive coordinator for the Detroit Lions; Whereas, in 1963, Coach Shula became the youngest coach in the NFL when he took the head coaching position at the Baltimore Colts; Whereas, as the head coach of the Baltimore Colts, Coach Shula-- (1) compiled a record of 71 wins, 23 losses, and 4 ties; and (2) won the NFL championship in 1968; Whereas, in 1970, Coach Shula became the head coach of the Miami Dolphins (referred to in this preamble as the ``Dolphins''); Whereas Coach Shula remained the head coach of the Dolphins for 26 seasons, took the Dolphins to 5 Super Bowls, and led the Dolphins to victory in 2 of those Super Bowls; Whereas Coach Shula led the 1972 Dolphins team to a perfect season; Whereas, in Super Bowl VII, Coach Shula led the Dolphins to victory over the Washington Redskins with a score of 14 to 7; Whereas, in Super Bowl VIII, Coach Shula led the Dolphins, the reigning Super Bowl champions, to victory over the Minnesota Vikings with a score of 24 to 7; Whereas, after 33 years of coaching, Coach Shula retired from coaching in 1995 with the NFL record for most wins by a head coach, compiling a regular season record of 328 wins, 156 losses, and 6 ties and a postseason record of 19 wins and 17 losses; Whereas Coach Shula was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1997; Whereas, following his coaching days, Coach Shula-- (1) supported many charities; (2) gave generously to his local parish; and (3) established the Don Shula Foundation to assist with breast cancer research; and Whereas Coach Shula, a loving husband, father, grandfather, son, and brother, passed away on May 4, 2020, at 90 years of age: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes the life and achievements of Pro Football Hall of Fame Coach Donald Francis Shula (referred to in this resolution as ``Coach Shula''); (2) expresses condolences to the family of Coach Shula on his passing; and (3) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to-- (A) the family of Coach Shula; and (B) the Miami Dolphins.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. RUBIO
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2548-2
| null | 693
|
formal
|
Baltimore
| null |
racist
|
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today, I honor the life and achievements of Coach Shula, who passed away on May 4, 2020, at the age of 90. I am pleased the Senate passed a resolution honoring the Pro Football Hall of Fame coach, with the following: Honoring the life and achievement of Pro Football Hall of Fame Coach Donald Francis Shula and expressing condolences to his family on his passing. Whereas Coach Donald Francis Shula (referred to in this preamble as ``Coach Shula'') was born on January 4, 1930, and grew up in Painesville, Ohio; Whereas Coach Shula's father immigrated to the United States from Hungary; Whereas Coach Shula attended Harvey High School and later played collegiate football at John Carroll University; Whereas, in 1951, the Cleveland Browns selected Coach Shula in the ninth round of the National Football League (referred to in this preamble as the ``NFL'') draft as a defensive back; Whereas, in addition to playing for the Cleveland Browns, Coach Shula also played for the Baltimore Colts and the Washington Redskins; Whereas Coach Shula-- (1) began his coaching career at the University of Virginia; (2) also coached at the University of Kentucky; and (3) coached as a defensive coordinator for the Detroit Lions; Whereas, in 1963, Coach Shula became the youngest coach in the NFL when he took the head coaching position at the Baltimore Colts; Whereas, as the head coach of the Baltimore Colts, Coach Shula-- (1) compiled a record of 71 wins, 23 losses, and 4 ties; and (2) won the NFL championship in 1968; Whereas, in 1970, Coach Shula became the head coach of the Miami Dolphins (referred to in this preamble as the ``Dolphins''); Whereas Coach Shula remained the head coach of the Dolphins for 26 seasons, took the Dolphins to 5 Super Bowls, and led the Dolphins to victory in 2 of those Super Bowls; Whereas Coach Shula led the 1972 Dolphins team to a perfect season; Whereas, in Super Bowl VII, Coach Shula led the Dolphins to victory over the Washington Redskins with a score of 14 to 7; Whereas, in Super Bowl VIII, Coach Shula led the Dolphins, the reigning Super Bowl champions, to victory over the Minnesota Vikings with a score of 24 to 7; Whereas, after 33 years of coaching, Coach Shula retired from coaching in 1995 with the NFL record for most wins by a head coach, compiling a regular season record of 328 wins, 156 losses, and 6 ties and a postseason record of 19 wins and 17 losses; Whereas Coach Shula was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1997; Whereas, following his coaching days, Coach Shula-- (1) supported many charities; (2) gave generously to his local parish; and (3) established the Don Shula Foundation to assist with breast cancer research; and Whereas Coach Shula, a loving husband, father, grandfather, son, and brother, passed away on May 4, 2020, at 90 years of age: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes the life and achievements of Pro Football Hall of Fame Coach Donald Francis Shula (referred to in this resolution as ``Coach Shula''); (2) expresses condolences to the family of Coach Shula on his passing; and (3) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to-- (A) the family of Coach Shula; and (B) the Miami Dolphins.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. RUBIO
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2548-2
| null | 694
|
formal
|
the Fed
| null |
antisemitic
|
The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-4540. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Chlormequat Chloride; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 10008-50-OSCPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-4541. A communication from the Secretary of Defense, transmitting a report on the approved retirement of General Gustave F. Perna, United States Army, and his advancement to the grade of general on the retired list; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4542. A communication from the Acting Associate General Counsel for Regulations and Legislation, Office of the Deputy Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Streamlining Administrative Regulations for Multifamily Housing Programs and Implementing Family Income Reviews under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act'' (RIN2502-AJ36) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 19, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4543. A communication from the Counsel to the Inspector General, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Inspector General, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Inspector General, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Inspector General, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4544. A communication from the Director of Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Reactor Regulations, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Evaluation of the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Vessel and Internals Project (BWRVIP) submitted `BWRVIP-25, Revision 1: BWR Vessel and Internals Project, BWR Core Plate Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines' '' (BWRVIP-25, Revision 1) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4545. A communication from the Biologist, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Species: Reclassifying the Golden Conure from Endangered to Threatened with a Section 4(d) Rule'' (RIN1018- BC78) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4546. A communication from the Acting Chief, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Oenothera coloradensis (Colorado Butterfly Plant) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants'' (RIN1018-BC02) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4547. A communication from the Acting Chief, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying the Hawaiian Goose from Endangered to Threatened with a Section 4(d) Rule'' (RIN1018-BC02) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4548. A communication from the Acting Chief, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Threatened Species Status for Meltwater Lednian Stonefly and Western Glacier Stonefly With a Section 4(d) Rule'' (RIN1018-BB52) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4549. A communication from the Acting Chief, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Hawaiian Hawk From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife'' (RIN1018-AU96) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4550. A communication from the Branch Chief, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Migratory Bird Permits; Regulations for Managing Resident Canada Goose Populations: Agricultural Facilities in the Atlantic Flyway'' (RIN1018-BD74) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4551. A communication from the Acting Chief, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Section 4(d) Rule for Louisiana Pinesnake'' (RIN1018-BD06) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4552. A communication from the Branch Chief, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Black Pinesnake'' (RIN1018-BD52) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4553. A communication from the Enforcement Specialist, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Civil Penalties; 2020 Inflation Adjustments for Civil Monetary Penalties'' (RIN1018-BE45) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4554. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (FRL No. 10009-27-Region 4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4555. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Louisiana; Infrastructure for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (FRL No. 10008-61-Region 6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4556. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Oregon; Emission Standard Definiton Rule Revision'' (FRL No. 10007-75-Region 10) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4557. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Vermont; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements for the 2015 Ozone Standard'' (FRL No. 10009-47-Region 1) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4558. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Small Manufacturer Definition Update for Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a)'' (FRL No. 10008-14-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4559. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Texas: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program Revisions and Incorporation by Reference'' (FRL No. 10009-03-Region 6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4560. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0882)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4561. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0863)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4562. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0873)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4563. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Honda Aircraft Company LLC'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0195)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4564. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0970)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4565. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020- 0205)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4566. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019- 0602)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4567. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; International Aero Engines, LLC'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020- 0184)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4568. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Yabora Industria Aeronautica S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Embraer S.A.) Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0975)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4569. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce, Deutschland Ltd. & Co. KG (Formerly Rolls-Royce plc) Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2018-0538)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4570. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; MD Helicopters Inc. Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2017- 1125)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4571. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Daher Aircraft Design, LLC (Type Certificate Previously Held by Quest Aircraft Design, LLC) Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0181)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4572. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Yabora Industria Aeronautica S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Embraer S.A.) Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0976)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4573. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whittney Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020- 0299)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4574. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type Certificate Previously Held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.)'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0988)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4575. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019- 0974)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4576. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; International Aero Engines LLC Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0614)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4577. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0221)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4578. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0979)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4579. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0861)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4580. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0713)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4581. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0199)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4582. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0712)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4583. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0198)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4584. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Robinson Helicopter Company Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-1053)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4585. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; CFM International S.A. Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019- 1093)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4586. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co. KG (Type Certificate Previously Held by Rolls-Royce plc) Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0179)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4587. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0105)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4588. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019- 0875)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4589. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0977)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4590. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0982)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4591. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class D and E Airspace, Nashua, New Hampshire'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2019- 0921)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4592. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Route Q-56 in the Vicinity of Atlanta, GA'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0274)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4593. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of VOR Federal Airway V-159 in the Vicinity of Hamilton, Alabama'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2017-0431)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4594. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-56, and V-209 in the Vicinity of Kewanee, Mississippi'' ((RIN2120- AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2017-0665)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4595. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Area Navigation Routes Q-75 and Q-475, Northeast Corridor Atlantic Coast routes; Northeastern United States'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA- 2019-0661)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4596. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-165 in the Vicinity of the Western United States'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0846)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4597. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-11 and V-275 in the Vicinity of Bryan, Ohio and Defiance, Ohio, Respectively'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0688)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4598. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of VOR Federal Airway V-18 in the Vicinity of Talladega, Alabama'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2018-1028)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4599. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of area Navigation Routes, Florida Metroplex Project; Southeastern United States'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0687)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4600. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes V-82, V-217, and T-383 in the Vicinity of Baudette, Minnesota'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0729)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4601. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Bend, Oregon'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0887)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4602. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Mountain Home, Idaho'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0972)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4603. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes; Northeastern United States'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0339)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4604. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Revocation of VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal Airway V-61 and Amendment of Area Navigation Route T-286 Due to the Decommissioning of the Robinson, Kansas, VOR'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0677)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4605. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments (125); Amendment No. 3896'' ((RIN2120-AA65) (Docket No. 31302)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4606. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments (58); Amendment No. 3895'' ((RIN2120-AA65) (Docket No. 31301)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4607. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule; Oxygen Mask Requirement; Supplemental Oxygen for Emergency descent and for First Aid; Turbine Engine Powered Airplanes with Pressurized Cabins'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0289)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4608. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 551'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. 31300)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
|
2020-01-06
|
Unknown
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2548-4
| null | 695
|
formal
|
Chicago
| null |
racist
|
5, 2020, AS ``NATIONAL GUN VIOLENCE AWARENESS DAY'' AND JUNE 2020 AS ``NATIONAL GUN VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH'' Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Duckworth, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Markey, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Harris, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Reed, Mr. Coons, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kaine, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Casey, Mr. Booker, Ms. Hirono, and Mr. Merkley) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 592 Whereas, each year in the United States, more than-- (1) 37,500 individuals are killed and 73,300 individuals are wounded by gunfire; (2) 13,300 individuals are killed in homicides involving firearms; (3) 22,900 individuals die by suicide using a firearm; and (4) 470 individuals are killed in unintentional shootings; Whereas, since 1968, more individuals have died from guns in the United States than have died on the battlefields of all the wars in the history of the United States; Whereas, by 1 count, in 2019 in the United States, there were 417 mass shooting incidents in which not fewer than 4 people were killed or wounded by gunfire; Whereas, in 2019 in the United States, there were at least 130 incidents of gunfire on school grounds, resulting in 33 deaths and 77 injuries; Whereas, every year in the United States, approximately 3,000 children and teens are killed by gun violence and 13,000 children and teens are shot and wounded; Whereas approximately 7,600 people in the United States under the age of 25 die because of gun violence annually, including Hadiya Pendleton, who, in 2013, was killed at 15 years of age in Chicago, Illinois, while standing in a park; Whereas the deadly toll of daily gun violence has continued even during the COVID-19 pandemic; Whereas, on June 5, 2020, to recognize the 23rd birthday of Hadiya Pendleton (born June 2, 1997), people across the United States will recognize National Gun Violence Awareness Day and wear orange in tribute to-- (1) Hadiya Pendleton and other victims of gun violence; and (2) the loved ones of those victims; and Whereas June 2020 is an appropriate month to designate as ``National Gun Violence Awareness Month'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) supports-- (A) the designation of June 2020 as ``National Gun Violence Awareness Month'' and the goals and ideals of that month; and (B) the designation of June 5, 2020, as ``National Gun Violence Awareness Day'', in remembrance of the victims of gun violence; and (2) calls on the people of the United States to-- (A) promote greater awareness of gun violence and gun safety; (B) wear orange, the color that hunters wear to show that they are not targets, on June 5, 2020; (C) concentrate heightened attention on gun violence during the summer months, when gun violence typically increases; and (D) bring community members and leaders together to discuss ways to make communities safer.
|
2020-01-06
|
Unknown
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2556
| null | 696
|
formal
|
early life
| null |
antisemitic
|
SA 1589. Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Cramer, and Mr. Cotton) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 945, to amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to require certain issuers to disclose to the Securities and Exchange Commission information regarding foreign jurisdictions that prevent the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board from performing inspections under that Act, and for other purposes. SA 1590. Mr. PORTMAN (for Mr. Alexander) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1130, to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve the health of children and help better understand and enhance awareness about unexpected sudden death in early life
|
2020-01-06
|
Unknown
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-20-pt1-PgS2557
| null | 697
|
formal
|
extremists
| null |
Islamophobic
|
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, we all ought to be very concerned, as I am, about the ongoing religious persecution happening in Nigeria. It may be happening in a lot of countries, but I just want to mention Nigeria today. In the last 6 months, there have been multiple attacks. This includes the murder of 11 Christians by extremists identified as part of ISIS, and--can you believe it--the beheading of a pastor by Boko Haram militants. West Africa released a barbaric video of a child of about 10 years old executing a Christian. The Nigerian authorities need to stop this persecution right now, and our own government, the U.S. Government, needs to do what it can to support that effort. For sure, those responsible must be held accountable for their actions. I yield the floor.
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. GRASSLEY
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-21-pt1-PgS2563-6
| null | 698
|
formal
|
terrorist
| null |
Islamophobic
|
Mr. McCONNELL. All month, the Senate has been on the job attending to the needs of our country. We legislated, we confirmed nominees, we held major hearings, and conducted oversight on the historic response to COVID-19. Yesterday, we learned that our Senate action will continue to contrast with our absentee neighbors across the Rotunda. While essential workers across the country continue to clock in, the Democratic House of Representatives has essentially put itself on paid leave for months. Since the early days of this crisis, the self-described ``People's House'' has been suspiciously empty of people. I understand they have convened for legislative session a grand total of 2 days in the last 8 weeks. At this point, I am wondering if we should send Senators over there to collect their newspaper and water the plants. It is not just their physical absence; it is House Democrats absent from any serious discussions at all. About the only product to emerge from their lengthy sabbatical has been a 1,800-page, $3 trillion messaging bill that couldn't even unite their own conference. Yesterday, the Speaker announced this arrangement will continue for another 45 days at least, but there is a new wrinkle. House Democrats jammed through a precedent-breaking remote voting scheme that will let 1 Member cast 10 additional votes--1 Member cast 10 additional votes. Actually, 1 person, 11 votes. Remember, these are the people who want to remake every State's election laws. There are several problems with this. One of them happens to be article I, section 5 of the U.S. Constitution,which says a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business. For about 231 years, Congress has managed to fulfill this job requirement. They worked through a Civil War, two World Wars, terrorist threats, and a major pandemic without trying to shirk this duty. The 12th Congress endured the War of 1812, including the occupation of Washington and the burning of this very building that we are in right now without abandoning in-person meetings. The Constitution requires a physical quorum to do business. Normally, both Chambers may presume one. But any House Member has a right to demand an in-person attendance check. The Democrats' new rule says one person may mark himself and 10 others present, even if they are nowhere in sight, which is a flatout lie. There will be enormous constitutional questions around anything the House does if they fail to demonstrate a real quorum, but plow ahead anyhow. They have had 2 normal workdays in 8 weeks and one absurd, unserious proposal. And now they are playing games with the Constitution so they can continue their never-ending spring break well into July. Let's come over here to the Senate. In the past 3 weeks, we have filled crucial posts at the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Department of Homeland Security. Today, we will confirm the next Director of National Intelligence. John Ratcliffe will lead the intelligence community in countering threats from great powers, rogue nations, and terrorists, and ensuring that work is untainted by political bias. The Banking Committee heard from Chairman Powell and Secretary Mnuchin on the workings of the CARES Act and the state of our economy. The Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee has reported the nominee to be Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery Programs. The Special Committee on Aging is examining all the ways this crisis has hurt America's seniors. The HELP Committee has discussed with top experts like Dr. Fauci and Admiral Giroir how schools, universities, and businesses will begin to reopen. Senator Cornyn and I are working on legal protections that our healthcare workers deserve and institutions will need if they want to return to anything reassembling normal. On the floor, we have passed major bills, renewing key national security tools and dialing up the consequences for Communist China's abuse of human rights. In short, the Senate has just followed the lead of the American people. For months now, healthcare workers have been clocking in to help and heal strangers. Every minute on the job is an act of selflessness and bravery. Families have forged new routines and set up home offices and home schools overnight. Community volunteers have found new ways to pitch in and help the vulnerable from 6 feet apart. Tens of millions of workers have kept collecting paychecks instead of pink slips because of our Paycheck Protection Program, which sent hundreds of billions of dollars to keep small businesses alive. COVID-19 has killed nearly 100,000 Americans. It has cost tens of millions their jobs. This is a generational tragedy. But in the midst of it, our country is pulling together. My home State of Kentucky is showing us how it is done. A glass producer transformed its operation to make protective shields for businesses. A high school principal, Evan Jackson, invented a virtual commencement so graduates didn't go uncelebrated. Dr. Erin Frazier, a pediatrician, somehow found the spare time to stand up brandnew food pantries. Restaurants are spreading hope and hospitality by donating meals to first responders. And one group of restaurants headquartered in Louisville called Texas Roadhouse has gone to great lengths to avoid layoffs. The founder gave up his salary and put his own money into a worker assistance fund. So far they have spent $17 million on their workers, covering everything from healthcare premiums to bonuses. These past few months have been trying indeed, but the American people have been truly inspiring. This spring, the Senate wrote and passed the largest rescue package in American history to try to help bridge this period. This Nation of nearly 330 million people put their lives on pause to protect our medical system, and it worked. The American people did what Americans do: They got it done. We kept our healthcare system intact; we did not let this virus break us; and as far as we know, not one single American who needed a ventilator could not get one. We have not yet won the war, but the citizens of this Nation have won an important battle. What comes next? Sustaining this flattened curve will take vigilance. Safely reopening schools, universities, and businesses will take care and leadership. The race for even more testing, therapeutics, and of course a vaccine will be one great national project. Rebuilding the prosperity we had just a few months ago will be another. Life will not go right back to normal. Repairing the damage will take creativity. But the greatest country in world history will find a more sustainable middle ground. Every one of my Senate colleagues should be proud of how we helped our Nation win this battle. Every day, our historic rescue package has continued to push out money and aid. Every day, we are working on ways to smooth the road toward reopening that lies before us. The American people have already been heroes. It is our honor as Senators to stand with them
|
2020-01-06
|
Mr. McCONNELL
|
Senate
|
CREC-2020-05-21-pt1-PgS2563-8
| null | 699
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.