Datasets:

jkruk

/

dw_instance_sm

like 0

formal

single

homophobic

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, one area where this Senate and the Congress, in general, along with the administration, have made significant progress is combating the ongoing drug addiction crisis in America that has affected so many families represented by all of us in this Chamber. In my home State of Ohio, we have been on the frontline of this crisis for years. Opioids, in particular, have taken a heavy toll in our communities. In fact, in 2017, our opioid overdose rate in Ohio was almost three times the national average, with nearly a dozen Ohioans dying from these dangerous drugs every single day, making it the No. 1 cause of death in Ohio, surpassing car accidents. Since 2017, we have begun to make progress, finally, to be able to turn the tide on opioids. In 2018, after a decade of increased overdose deaths every year for the previous dozen years, we finally had a reduction, a 22-percent reduction in overdose deaths. By the way, that led the Nation in terms of the percent decrease. It is still way too high--unacceptably high--but we are starting to make progress. A lot of it goes back to what is being done here at the Federal level, but also the State level and local level, to address this problem. We have dramatically increased funding here for treatment for recovery, including providing Narcan as a way to save people's lives. It is a miracle drug that reverses the effects of an overdose. We have done some things that are very important. More recently, we have sent these resources through legislation that the President signed into law just last year. There are resources also provided by the State opioid response grants and also by our bipartisan Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA, helping our first responders to be ableto use innovative and new approaches to ensure that individuals whose overdoses are reversed go into treatment rather than just overdosing again and again. The good news is that at the end of the year, the spending bill that Congress passed secured a record $658 million in funding for these Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act grants, or CARA grants. I was the author of that legislation, initially, along with Sheldon Whitehouse on the other side of the aisle. We started off with closer to $200 million. Now, we are at $658 million. Why? Because it is working. I have been back home, going from place to place, seeing how it works. I have watched some of these first responders in action with social workers and treatment providers who are going into people's homes and getting people into treatment who previously were not. We can't rest on our laurels because we have to do a lot more to address all forms of addiction that are increasingly becoming a problem. We have seen in Ohio and around the country that psychostimulants have now come back with a vengeance. This would be crystal meth from Mexico and cocaine. It is surging in communities across our State. According to our deputy attorney general in Ohio, law enforcement officials in 2018 tested double the amount of methamphetamine samples as they had in 2017 and triple the amount from 2016. In other words, crystal meth is growing. Higher and higher amounts of it are coming in and more and more people are being affected by this. I heard this at roundtable discussions around the State. I was in Knox County last year, learning that the prosecutor's office estimates that 80 to 90 percent of all drug incidents included crystal meth. Opioids used to be their biggest problem in Knox County, as it has been in all 80 counties in Ohio until recently. Now it is pure crystal meth coming in from Mexico. I am pleased that the spending bill at the end of last year that we passed just last month changed the way in which our funding is delivered in the fight against addiction. Specifically, included in that is my Combating Meth and Cocaine Act. This is an important bill that allows States the flexibility to use the roughly $1.5 billion in grant funds allocated specifically to combat opioids. The 21st Century Cures grants, now called the State response grants, can all be used for the treatment and recovery services for new threats like crystal meth and cocaine. Giving our local communities that flexibility is incredibly important. I have heard it constantly when I am back home. We have now done that. We have been able to help even further to try to reverse the effects, not just of the opioid crisis but of the drug crisis and all forms of addiction. We have made significant strides in ensuring that we can respond to this ever-changing addiction crisis. I am proud we are able to do it. As I said at the beginning of this speech, this is a pretty divisive time in Washington, to say the least. No one can deny that. What I hoped to show by highlighting these achievements over the past year is that even in a highly partisan environment, it is possible to bring people together to get things done and pass laws that make a fundamental improvement to the lives of the people we represent. While lots of time finding that common ground takes more work, it is worth it. The extra effort goes a long way. Fortunately, we are coming into this new session of Congress having already laid the groundwork that we need to do to continue to fight this addiction crisis. Critical right now to that fight is passing bipartisan legislation that will help us to push back against a particular kind of opioid, the synthetic opioid called fentanyl. Fentanyl came on the scene 5 or 6 years ago with a vengeance. Just as we were making progress on reducing the use of heroin and prescription drugs, suddenly, this fentanyl arrives. It is a synthetic opioid. It is 50 times more powerful on average than heroin. It is now the No. 1 killer. It has been the last few years. In States like mine, Ohio, when you look at the numbers over the past few years, although we are making progress on other opioids, we are not making progress on fentanyl. Why? Because it is being mixed into all kinds of other drugs, including crystal meth, including opioids, including all street drugs. The improvements we have seen are significant, but fentanyl continues to be the No. 1 killer. Fentanyl, unfortunately, knows no ZIP Code and is devastating individuals and families all across the country. According to the most recent data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 72,000 drug-related deaths in the United States in 2017, and 40 percent of those deaths were involving fentanyl. That data showed that the overdose deaths due to fentanyl had increased at a rate of 88 percent per year, on average, since 2013. It is a real threat to our States. In 2017 alone, we had a record 3,500 overdose deaths in Ohio that were attributable to fentanyl. Last fall, our Narcotics and Gun Enforcement Task Force seized 45 pounds of fentanyl in a single bust in Montgomery County, in Dayton, OH. There was enough of the drug to kill the entire population of Ohio. That is why the Drug Enforcement Agency made the right call in 2018 to make fentanyl-related substances illegal to possess, transport, or manufacture. This means they have been scheduled. Thanks to that designation, our law enforcement officials have been able to better protect our communities by seizing and destroying large amounts of these fentanyl-related substances, which are the analogs to fentanyl. So that is good. Unfortunately, due to Federal law, the DEA was only able to make these dangerous substances illegal on a temporary basis. Think about that. You have this deadly drug that is 50 times more powerful than heroin. Back in 2018, we were able to finally make not just fentanyl but all of its analogs--fentanyl-related substances--illegal. Law enforcement was using that to begin to push back, and now we find it was only temporary. Guess what. We are fast approaching the end of that designation. Next month, on February 6, which is 3 weeks from this Thursday, fentanyl-related substances will once again be legal, and it will be much harder to keep vulnerable communities safe from these deadly substances. We cannot let that happen. I met earlier today with former Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, who is now our Ambassador to China. For years, many of us have been pushing China to do more to crack down on fentanyl because most of the fentanyl that comes to this country and kills individuals in our communities comes from China. Most of it has been coming through our mail system. We have done a lot to stop that. We have passed the STOP Act, which tightens up the post office's screening process, which has worked very well over the last year. We have also provided more money under the INTERDICT Act in order to provide better equipment not just to our Postal Service but also to the private carriers like DHL and FedEx. What has happened is, China has also done a better job of making fentanyl illegal and scheduling the precursors and analogs to fentanyl, and we have pushed them very hard on that. I have myself been to China and have personally done that, and I know Ambassador Branstad has pushed China hard on this. Finally, China has begun to start addressing this rampant production in its country. Terry Branstad told me today--and I agree with him--that the credibility of the United States to continue to provide pressure to China to do the right thing will be eroded dramatically if we don't continue to schedule fentanyl. As we are asking China to do it, we cannot let this designation lapse here. Obviously, what is most important is that we not let it lapse because it is the wrong thing to do and because it will affect all of our communities and all of our families who have been affected by this dangerous drug. We can't let it happen. That is why, last fall, Senator Joe Manchin and I introduced a bill called FIGHT Fentanyl, which codifies the Drug Enforcement Agency's precedent to permanently schedule fentanyl-related substances. So forget these temporary designations that have caused these issues; let's permanently schedule these fentanyl-related substances. It has very strong bipartisan support. In fact, as of a couple of weeks ago,every single U.S. State's and territory's attorney general has now endorsed our bill. That is all 50 States and 6 territories. That doesn't happen very often. This is a bipartisan group of law enforcement officials who has said: We support this legislation, the FIGHT Fentanyl Act, that we introduced last fall. I am confident we can get it passed if it comes to the floor for a vote. There are other approaches to it as well that are slightly different than ours. I support those as well. The point is, we need to pass legislation to ensure that February 6 doesn't come and go without our scheduling these fentanyl analogs. It is a good example of the need to continue working across the aisle on this issue. We have done a good job with it so far. As I have said, even in these contentious times, we have to do it again, and we have to do it soon. I am told that during impeachment, it is impossible or at least very difficult to legislate on any other topic without having unanimous consent. So we need to get this done before next week, before we get the Articles of Impeachment and before the U.S. Senate begins the impeachment trial. I urge all of our colleagues to focus today on this issue. Join us in this commonsense, lifesaving legislation. Let's work together. The Committee on the Judiciary has been working on this, and others have worked on this. We have legislation at the desk to be able to solve it. I hope we can do it by unanimous consent, but we have to do it. This is lifesaving legislation to keep fentanyl from spreading its poison even further. I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. PORTMAN

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS181-3

formal

terrorism

Islamophobic

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, whether it is tomorrow, later today, or sometime next week, I know there will be an effort here to restrict the President's ability to engage the Armed Forces of the United States in a conflict with Iran. I think, any time you have something like that come up, there are two most important questions that need to be answered: No. 1, Why? Why do we need this law that you are pursuing? No. 2, What would that law do? Let me try to answer the ``why.'' I can deduce two separate arguments. The first is the argument that somehow the actions of the United States, for example, of pursuing a maximum pressure campaign against Iran and leaving the Iran deal--according to at least the language of the version I saw, which I know is going to be amended--have included economic, diplomatic, and military pressure and that this is raising the risk of retaliation against U.S. troops and personnel, which will lead to a cycle of escalating back-and-forth violence between Iran and its proxies and the United States, and that these warnings have been proven to be correct. I guess the first argument is that we left the Iran deal and that this is the reason we are now on the verge of what some view to be an all-out war against Iran. The second argument is rooted in the constitutional views that some of my colleagues hold that Congress has a role to play and that no extended military engagement should be allowed without there being congressional approval. These are two separate motivations, and I think it is possible to hold that second position and also be motivated by the first. I think, for many of my colleagues, it is solely a constitutional question, which I respect. So let's analyze the ``why'' for a second. First of all, I think it is just not true that the reason Iran and its proxies are trying to kill Americans is that we pulled out of the Obama deal with Iran. Iran has most certainly responded with violence to our decision, but that is not what motivated Iran. For example, before there was even an Iran deal from which to pull out, it was already equipping and supplying Shia militias in Iraq with weapons that killed and maimed Americans in the hundreds. In fact, Iran's antagonism toward us predates any discussion about an Iran deal. It predates our presence in the region and the numbers that we currently have there. I think it is also flawed because, during the Iran deal--even when the Iran deal was in place--Iran was still sponsoring all of the same proxy groups with all of the same weapons and was undertaking all of the same targeting. One of the flaws of the Iran deal and one of the reasons the Iran deal was not a good one was that it actually didn't deal with this activity. The only thing it dealt with was enrichment. It did nothing to limit Iran's missile program, and it did nothing to limit Iran's sponsorship of terrorism. In fact, the only impact it had on its missile program and on its sponsorship of terrorism was that it provided economic activity that generated revenue to fund those things. Despite the denial and the repeated and bold-faced lies of some who have gone on TV and have said: Oh, there was never any cash transfer, there absolutely was. There was over $1 billion delivered to the Iranians. They say these were funds that had been frozen. They say this was their money and that this is why it was released to them as part of this deal. The Iranians don't tell you that there is close to $50 billion in unpaid claims that have been adjudicated in U.S. courts on behalf of Americans who have suffered at the hands of Iranian terror and who have not been paid. Suffice it to say that the Iran deal was flawed. One of the reasons it was flawed is that it did nothing to prohibit the sponsorship of terrorism, and it actually generated economic activity and the delivery of over $1 billion in cash. I assure you this was not used to build bridges, roads, and schools but was used to fund these nefarious activities that Iran undertook before the Iran deal, during the Iran deal, and after the Iran deal. So the fact that Iran is responding with violence to economic sanctions, which by itself is unacceptable, tells us the nature of this regime is to respond to economic sanctions--not to military action--with violence and efforts to kill Americans. It doesn't mean this is the reason Iran was doing that. Iran was already doing that. It has just been part of its response. This leads me to the second point. Iran has already been doing it because Iran's goal is not simply to get us back into the Iran deal; its goal is to drive us from the region. Iran does not want an American presence there, and it does not want American influence in the region. Iran does not want it in Iraq, which it has been against from the very beginning, and it doesn't want it in Syria. Yet it is not just limited to Iraq and Syria. Iran doesn't want our presence in Jordan, in Kuwait, or in Bahrain. It doesn't want any American presence in Afghanistan. It doesn't want us anywhere in the region because Iran views it as an impediment to its desire to be a dominant regional power, and Iran views it as an impediment to its ultimate design of destroying the Jewish State. Iran decided not last week, not last year, and not at the beginning of the Trump Presidency but well over a decade and a half ago that the way it was going to get us to leave the region was by inflicting costs--i.e., with the deaths and the injuries of American service men and women--and that Iran would make it so painful for us to be there and so painful for these countries to host us that we would ultimately leave. That is the reason Iran is undertaking these attacks. Now, why are we there? It is a good question and a valid one to answer, and I will answer it in the cases of both Syria and Iraq. We are not there on an anti-Iran campaign the way in which some describe. There is an element of prohibiting Iran from capturing Iraq and turning it into a puppet state. By the way, many Shia politicians in Iraq share that view. They may not want us to be the protector, at least openly, but they are nationalists just like they are Shia. The fundamental and the principal reason we are in Iraq is as part of NATO's anti-ISIS mission and as a train-and-equip mission. We are there to train and equip Iraqis to fight against ISIS. It has been an effort that has been successful. It has worked. It is interesting that for a time, when Iran shared the same fears of ISIS, you saw Iran sort of stand down a little bit. Even after we pulled out of the Iran deal, Iran pulled back a little bit because it, too, wanted ISIS defeated. Now it argues that, in its mind, ISIS has been diminished and that it is timefor the Americans to go. If you will not leave on your own, then we are going to start killing people until you decide the price of being here is too high. Here is the bottom line. The reason there are American troops in large parts of this region is for an anti-terror campaign. Iran has decided to use proxies and these deniable attacks--by ``deniable,'' I mean getting some other group to use the weapons you gave them to attack Americans--so Iran can say: It was not us, even though everyone knows it is Iran. That way, you can sort of try to avoid a direct war with the United States and international condemnation, but everyone knows it is you. That is why Iran is attacking us. Now, I ask you: What is supposed to be the U.S. response? First of all, it is in the law. It is a constitutional requirement, and the power resides in the Presidency--the right to defend U.S. service men and women when they come under attack. No. 1, there is a constitutional power and, in my mind, an obligation to defend, to prevent, to repel, and to respond to attacks against American troops who are deployed abroad. No. 2, it is embedded in congressional authorization for that anti-terror mission to begin with. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, we are present at the authorization given by Congress over a decade and a half ago, and imbedded in that authorization is the right to self-defense. The third point I would make is that if you look at this argument about AUMF, you would think what we are seeing here looks something like the run-up to the Iraq war or the run-up to the Afghanistan war. This is complete fiction. The Afghanistan war was one in which the Bush White House came to the Congress back then and said: Look, the Taliban is allowing al-Qaida to act with impunity from its territory, and we are going to go take them out. It was an offensive operation--an invasion. With Iraq, we all know the justification, which turned out not to be the case, about weapons of mass destruction and the like--again, an offensive military operation. No one in American politics whom I see--certainly no one in the Trump administration--has talked about ramping up and sending 150,000 or 200,000 troops marching into Tehran. No one is contemplating that. The only thing the Trump administration has talked about is that if you attack our troops or if we think you are getting ready to attack our troops, we are going to prevent it if we can. We are going to repel that attack if it happens, and we are going to respond proportionately in return as a deterrent. You don't need congressional authorization to do that. Imagine the practical implications if that were the case. The President of the United States would have to come to Congress on December 30 because we are under attack and ask us to reconvene; everybody fly in, take a vote, debate for a week and a half, and then decide. By that time we would have 300 dead Americans. It is ridiculous. It is not a requirement. It is not even practical. So I don't understand the purpose of this AUMF. What war are you trying to prevent? Unless you believe that we brought this upon ourselves because we pulled out of the Iran deal--even if you believe that one of the reasons we stayed in the Iran deal was to prevent these sorts of attacks, which I don't think is justified--it is not a justified argument by the very fact that even during the Iran deal they were already doing some of these things and have a long history of doing that. If you argue it and believe it, you can't argue that attacking and killing Americans--violence--is an appropriate response to economic sanctions. You most certainly cannot argue that we cannot have a military response to protect our men and women and our interests in the region. Yet that seems to be the argument embedded in the AUMF. Some will state that all it does is restate law, and it doesn't have any practical impact in the end. If the House doesn't pass the same thing, what is this really going to mean? That is true in a legal perspective. Let me state what the headlines already say and are going to say. Here is what they are going to say: ``Congress votes to limit President's military options'' or ``Congress votes to limit Trump's ability to respond militarily to Iran.'' I want to be clear because I have heard this from others--the fact that they were being told not to debate this issue. Debate all you want, but those headlines and how they are read in places like Iran are very different than the debate we are having here. How they would read it is that the President has political domestic constraints about how much he can respond to what they do. We already have a fundamental problem with Iran, and that is, unlike many countries in the world, they don't view or respond to things in the same way. For example, it is pretty clear that their view of what they can get away with is much higher than the reality of what they can get away with, as evidenced by the increasing scale and increasing magnitude of the attacks that their proxies were taking against the United States and the region. So the threat of miscalculation on their part is very, very high. Let's not forget that just a week ago they launched over a dozen rockets at a U.S. military installation where, by the grace of God, no one was killed. But they could have been. You don't launch that many rockets at a U.S. military installation and not expect that some Americans are going to die. So their internal calculus about what they can get away with is already twisted. Imagine adding to that the perception that somehow the President's hands are tied: No matter what we do, we can kill 100 Americans because he is really not going to be able to do very much because the Congress took away his power. You can take the chance that these guys are somehow legal scholars in schools in the American legal system. You can take the chance that they read Congressional Quarterly or whatever publication or that they have read the latest issue of whatever the congressional research office has produced for the practical implications or you can worry that they will misinterpret this vote and its impact for what it means to what they can get away with. If you want to have a debate, have it. I don't know what you are going to have a debate about. There is no one planning an all-out war against Iran. The administration's strategy is pretty straightforward: If they attack us or are getting ready to attack us, we will respond. If they don't, we won't. The question of whether there is going to be armed conflict between the United States and Iran is not in the hands of the White House; it is in the hands of the Ayatollah. I assure you, no matter what we vote on here, it is not going to impact their decision over there. No one--no one I know of--wants a war with Iran. That is not the goal. The goal, hopefully, is to have an Iran that doesn't sponsor terrorism, that doesn't want nuclear weapons, and that acts like a normal country. I bet that is the goal of millions of Iranians themselves. In the interim, until that day comes, we have an obligation to protect our interests. We have an obligation to protect our men and women whom we have sent into harm's way. For the life of me, I just don't understand what this AUMF seeks to prevent--a war that no one is calling for. I don't want to imply that we can't have these debates in America, because we can and we should. We are a free society. But I want everybody to be clear about how these debates can be misinterpreted and how these headlines can be misinterpreted by the people who actually have these rockets and control these proxy groups. The bottom line is that Iran's goal is not just to get us back into the nuclear deal; their goal is to drive us from the region. They want us out, and they have concluded that the way to do that is to use other groups whom they are arming and equipping with increasingly more and more capabilities, meaning bigger and deadlier ammunitions and rockets and the like to kill Americans, and the more Americans who die--even if they are there on an anti-terror mission--the likelier it is that we are going to have to pull them out of there. That is what they want. They want us to leave Iraq so that they can turn it into a puppet State. They want all NATO and allied presence out of Syria so that they can control Syria entirely. They want to fracture our relationship with Lebanon sothat Hezbollah can control that country. They want to destroy our presence in Bahrain, where the Fifth Fleet is located. You can go on and on. In the end, I think the question becomes, Are we prepared to retreat from that region entirely? You cannot come here and criticize the President for removing troops from the Syrian-Turkish border and abandoning the Kurds and at the same time argue: But you don't have the power unless we authorize you to defend those very troops if they come under attack by some Iranian proxy group. Yet that seems to be the argument. You cannot argue: We cannot just pick up and leave the Iraqis at the mercy of the Iranian regime. I assure you that if the President announced tomorrow ``I am pulling out of Iraq'' or if he said before the Soleimani strike ``I am pulling out of Iraq,'' the floor would be filled with people saying that we have abandoned our allies; we have abandoned the Kurds in Northern Iraq; we have abandoned the Sunnis, who are scared of the Iranians. You cannot argue that and argue at the same time that you think we need to be present and continue to work toward the functionality of that State and at the same time say: But you need congressional approval to act in defense of the people we send there who wear the uniform--or our diplomats, for that matter. Yet that seems to be the argument behind this AUMF. The vote is going to be what it is. We are going to have this debate. I remember about a year and a half ago, when tensions were high with North Korea, they wanted an AUMF for that. You can disagree with this White House all you want. I don't think we have had a more anti-war President in my lifetime than the one we have right now. If you think about it for a moment, almost any other predecessor may have responded with a lot less restraint to some of the provocations and attacks we have seen from Iran and its proxies. He acted in a way that I think history will fully justify and in defense of American lives in taking out Soleimani and disrupting a near-term plot that could have very easily have killed dozens, if not hundreds, of Americans in the near term. I chuckle when I hear people saying: Well, how do we know what Soleimani was doing? Well, that was his full-time job. He wasn't a stockbroker or realtor or diplomat. His full-time job was to travel the world to set up groups and equip groups so that when he told them to go, they could go kill Americans. That was his full-time job. That is what he was doing there. I believe when all is said and done, history will fully vindicate the decision that was made. We will have this debate at some point. I imagine that at some point it will move to the floor. It is a privileged resolution. I just think it is shortsighted, and I hope that some of my colleagues who have signed on to it thinking that somehow we were exerting Congress's constitutional authority--I have no problem with asserting Congress's constitutional authority when it is actually being challenged, but there is no congressional constitutional authority that can prevent a President or should prevent a President from acting in defense of our men and women in uniform when we deploy them abroad. In my view, that is what this bill, which will shortly be before us, does. That is the practical implication of it, so I hope those who chose to be for it will reconsider. I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. RUBIO

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS183

formal

single

homophobic

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, last week, the Senate Finance Committee voted on the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. It is called USMCA. I did something I have never done. I voted for it. I have never voted for a trade agreement in my time in the House of Representatives and my time in the Senate. In fact, I helped to lead the opposition to the original NAFTA among freshmen Members of Congress because I recognized that every single one of these trade agreements basically had the template of corporate interests at the center of them. In other words, these trade agreements--whether it was NAFTA, or the North American Free Trade Agreement, whether a half generation later it was the Central America Free Trade Agreement, whether it was the free trade agreement with South Korea, or whether it was the Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China--all of them were written by corporate interests serving the profitability of the executives andthe major stockholders of these companies. They all tended to precipitate this under these trade agreements in this Congress, under Presidents of both parties, I might add. I disagreed with the first President Bush, then President Clinton, then the second President Bush, and then President Obama. All of them would submit trade agreements that were written for corporate interests, I believe, at the expense of workers. What happened, typically, was that companies that lobbied Congress to pass these trade agreements would shut down production in Provo, UT, in the Presiding Officer's State, or Cleveland or Dayton, in my State. They would shut down production there, move their production overseas, get their tax breaks, and get their low-wage labor, often worked on by--almost always--nonunion workers, sometimes underage workers who were very inexpensive. The products would be manufactured and then sold back into the United States. That became the business model for company after company after company since the North American Free Trade Agreement, where corporations outsourced jobs in order to save money, always at the expense of communities, particularly in the industrial Midwest, always at the expense of workers, and always at the expense of the middle class. It was welcome news to me when Candidate Trump, with whom I agree with on almost nothing, said he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. So I tried to work with him. I told him that I supported his renegotiation. I worked with Ambassador Lighthizer, the Trade Representative, the Ambassador for President Trump--the so-called U.S. Trade Representative. I said to them that we want workers to be the centerpiece of this trade agreement. Well, what happened? A year into his Presidency, President Trump proposed the same kind of trade agreement that we had seen all along--a trade agreement where corporations were at the center of the agreement and workers were betrayed. This is a President who has betrayed workers day after day after day. He refused to raise the minimum wage. He cut overtime pay for 50,000 Ohio workers. He put people in the courts who put a thumb on the scales of justice, choosing corporations over workers and choosing Wall Street over consumers. It is a White House that looks like a retreat for Wall Street executives except on Tuesdays and Fridays, when it looks like a retreat for a drug company executive. That is what the President proposed. Speaker Pelosi, Senator Wyden and I, and worker representatives--the AFL-CIO, the UAW, the CWA, the machinists, and the steelworkers--all said: No, we are not going to support another trade agreement that sends jobs overseas. We want a trade agreement written for workers. We said to the President and the President's Trade Representative: We are not going to support this unless you include strong labor enforcement standards for workers. They basically ignored us. We had tried to work with them. They basically ignored us. They insisted we pass their bill. Finally, after a year--more than a year--the administration came along kicking and screaming and agreed with us only because they knew they couldn't pass a trade agreement without it. It took the language that Senator Wyden and I submitted for workers. It works in this way: For the first time, a worker is empowered to challenge the violation of labor law. So a Mexican worker, where the company has broken the law by paying them a sub-minimum wage, where the company has broken the law by refusing them to organize or to allow unions to attempt to organize, where a company breaks the law on worker safety--a worker at that company, anonymously, at that worksite, can file a complaint and set off the clock of the process so we can actually challenge when they break the law. We know why companies close factories in Ohio and in the State of my friend from Rhode Island, in Cranston, RI. They close factories and open them in Mexico because they can pay lower wages, and they can take advantage of workers who don't have rights. American workers can't compete with that. We know that, and we get a race to the bottom on wages. What this agreement does is that it puts workers at the center. It allows for real labor enforcement, real enforcement of labor standards. So I voted for this agreement. It passed with only three ``no'' votes in the Senate committee. It will likely pass on the floor either this week or next week. But I want to be straight with American workers. This isn't a perfect agreement. It is one trade deal that Democrats fixed. Democrats and labor fixed it. Republicans opposed the fix but are now voting for it because they still want USMCA, but it will not fix the rest of President Trump's economic policies that put corporations over workers. Let me give you an example. If you are a company in Dayton, OH, you pay a 21-percent corporate tax rate. If you move to Mexico or you move to France or you move to China, you pay only a 10.5-percent corporate tax rate. So our government continues this because of President Trump's tax bill, the tax bill that caused us now to have a trillion-dollar-a-year deficit--the largest deficit we have had, except in times of recession. That tax bill still will make it attractive for companies to shut down and move overseas. This helps with that. As I said, I voted yes for the first time on a trade agreement because by including Brown-Wyden, Democrats have made this agreement, for the first time, pro-worker. We set an important precedent that, from now on, every trade agreement we negotiate--and, I believe, negotiated by Presidents in either party--will include language like Brown-Wyden, making sure that workers are at the table and that trade agreements look out for workers, unlike trade agreements in the past. I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. BROWN

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS185

formal

middle class

racist

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, last week, the Senate Finance Committee voted on the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. It is called USMCA. I did something I have never done. I voted for it. I have never voted for a trade agreement in my time in the House of Representatives and my time in the Senate. In fact, I helped to lead the opposition to the original NAFTA among freshmen Members of Congress because I recognized that every single one of these trade agreements basically had the template of corporate interests at the center of them. In other words, these trade agreements--whether it was NAFTA, or the North American Free Trade Agreement, whether a half generation later it was the Central America Free Trade Agreement, whether it was the free trade agreement with South Korea, or whether it was the Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China--all of them were written by corporate interests serving the profitability of the executives andthe major stockholders of these companies. They all tended to precipitate this under these trade agreements in this Congress, under Presidents of both parties, I might add. I disagreed with the first President Bush, then President Clinton, then the second President Bush, and then President Obama. All of them would submit trade agreements that were written for corporate interests, I believe, at the expense of workers. What happened, typically, was that companies that lobbied Congress to pass these trade agreements would shut down production in Provo, UT, in the Presiding Officer's State, or Cleveland or Dayton, in my State. They would shut down production there, move their production overseas, get their tax breaks, and get their low-wage labor, often worked on by--almost always--nonunion workers, sometimes underage workers who were very inexpensive. The products would be manufactured and then sold back into the United States. That became the business model for company after company after company since the North American Free Trade Agreement, where corporations outsourced jobs in order to save money, always at the expense of communities, particularly in the industrial Midwest, always at the expense of workers, and always at the expense of the middle class. It was welcome news to me when Candidate Trump, with whom I agree with on almost nothing, said he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. So I tried to work with him. I told him that I supported his renegotiation. I worked with Ambassador Lighthizer, the Trade Representative, the Ambassador for President Trump--the so-called U.S. Trade Representative. I said to them that we want workers to be the centerpiece of this trade agreement. Well, what happened? A year into his Presidency, President Trump proposed the same kind of trade agreement that we had seen all along--a trade agreement where corporations were at the center of the agreement and workers were betrayed. This is a President who has betrayed workers day after day after day. He refused to raise the minimum wage. He cut overtime pay for 50,000 Ohio workers. He put people in the courts who put a thumb on the scales of justice, choosing corporations over workers and choosing Wall Street over consumers. It is a White House that looks like a retreat for Wall Street executives except on Tuesdays and Fridays, when it looks like a retreat for a drug company executive. That is what the President proposed. Speaker Pelosi, Senator Wyden and I, and worker representatives--the AFL-CIO, the UAW, the CWA, the machinists, and the steelworkers--all said: No, we are not going to support another trade agreement that sends jobs overseas. We want a trade agreement written for workers. We said to the President and the President's Trade Representative: We are not going to support this unless you include strong labor enforcement standards for workers. They basically ignored us. We had tried to work with them. They basically ignored us. They insisted we pass their bill. Finally, after a year--more than a year--the administration came along kicking and screaming and agreed with us only because they knew they couldn't pass a trade agreement without it. It took the language that Senator Wyden and I submitted for workers. It works in this way: For the first time, a worker is empowered to challenge the violation of labor law. So a Mexican worker, where the company has broken the law by paying them a sub-minimum wage, where the company has broken the law by refusing them to organize or to allow unions to attempt to organize, where a company breaks the law on worker safety--a worker at that company, anonymously, at that worksite, can file a complaint and set off the clock of the process so we can actually challenge when they break the law. We know why companies close factories in Ohio and in the State of my friend from Rhode Island, in Cranston, RI. They close factories and open them in Mexico because they can pay lower wages, and they can take advantage of workers who don't have rights. American workers can't compete with that. We know that, and we get a race to the bottom on wages. What this agreement does is that it puts workers at the center. It allows for real labor enforcement, real enforcement of labor standards. So I voted for this agreement. It passed with only three ``no'' votes in the Senate committee. It will likely pass on the floor either this week or next week. But I want to be straight with American workers. This isn't a perfect agreement. It is one trade deal that Democrats fixed. Democrats and labor fixed it. Republicans opposed the fix but are now voting for it because they still want USMCA, but it will not fix the rest of President Trump's economic policies that put corporations over workers. Let me give you an example. If you are a company in Dayton, OH, you pay a 21-percent corporate tax rate. If you move to Mexico or you move to France or you move to China, you pay only a 10.5-percent corporate tax rate. So our government continues this because of President Trump's tax bill, the tax bill that caused us now to have a trillion-dollar-a-year deficit--the largest deficit we have had, except in times of recession. That tax bill still will make it attractive for companies to shut down and move overseas. This helps with that. As I said, I voted yes for the first time on a trade agreement because by including Brown-Wyden, Democrats have made this agreement, for the first time, pro-worker. We set an important precedent that, from now on, every trade agreement we negotiate--and, I believe, negotiated by Presidents in either party--will include language like Brown-Wyden, making sure that workers are at the table and that trade agreements look out for workers, unlike trade agreements in the past. I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. BROWN

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS185

formal

Cleveland

racist

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, last week, the Senate Finance Committee voted on the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. It is called USMCA. I did something I have never done. I voted for it. I have never voted for a trade agreement in my time in the House of Representatives and my time in the Senate. In fact, I helped to lead the opposition to the original NAFTA among freshmen Members of Congress because I recognized that every single one of these trade agreements basically had the template of corporate interests at the center of them. In other words, these trade agreements--whether it was NAFTA, or the North American Free Trade Agreement, whether a half generation later it was the Central America Free Trade Agreement, whether it was the free trade agreement with South Korea, or whether it was the Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China--all of them were written by corporate interests serving the profitability of the executives andthe major stockholders of these companies. They all tended to precipitate this under these trade agreements in this Congress, under Presidents of both parties, I might add. I disagreed with the first President Bush, then President Clinton, then the second President Bush, and then President Obama. All of them would submit trade agreements that were written for corporate interests, I believe, at the expense of workers. What happened, typically, was that companies that lobbied Congress to pass these trade agreements would shut down production in Provo, UT, in the Presiding Officer's State, or Cleveland or Dayton, in my State. They would shut down production there, move their production overseas, get their tax breaks, and get their low-wage labor, often worked on by--almost always--nonunion workers, sometimes underage workers who were very inexpensive. The products would be manufactured and then sold back into the United States. That became the business model for company after company after company since the North American Free Trade Agreement, where corporations outsourced jobs in order to save money, always at the expense of communities, particularly in the industrial Midwest, always at the expense of workers, and always at the expense of the middle class. It was welcome news to me when Candidate Trump, with whom I agree with on almost nothing, said he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. So I tried to work with him. I told him that I supported his renegotiation. I worked with Ambassador Lighthizer, the Trade Representative, the Ambassador for President Trump--the so-called U.S. Trade Representative. I said to them that we want workers to be the centerpiece of this trade agreement. Well, what happened? A year into his Presidency, President Trump proposed the same kind of trade agreement that we had seen all along--a trade agreement where corporations were at the center of the agreement and workers were betrayed. This is a President who has betrayed workers day after day after day. He refused to raise the minimum wage. He cut overtime pay for 50,000 Ohio workers. He put people in the courts who put a thumb on the scales of justice, choosing corporations over workers and choosing Wall Street over consumers. It is a White House that looks like a retreat for Wall Street executives except on Tuesdays and Fridays, when it looks like a retreat for a drug company executive. That is what the President proposed. Speaker Pelosi, Senator Wyden and I, and worker representatives--the AFL-CIO, the UAW, the CWA, the machinists, and the steelworkers--all said: No, we are not going to support another trade agreement that sends jobs overseas. We want a trade agreement written for workers. We said to the President and the President's Trade Representative: We are not going to support this unless you include strong labor enforcement standards for workers. They basically ignored us. We had tried to work with them. They basically ignored us. They insisted we pass their bill. Finally, after a year--more than a year--the administration came along kicking and screaming and agreed with us only because they knew they couldn't pass a trade agreement without it. It took the language that Senator Wyden and I submitted for workers. It works in this way: For the first time, a worker is empowered to challenge the violation of labor law. So a Mexican worker, where the company has broken the law by paying them a sub-minimum wage, where the company has broken the law by refusing them to organize or to allow unions to attempt to organize, where a company breaks the law on worker safety--a worker at that company, anonymously, at that worksite, can file a complaint and set off the clock of the process so we can actually challenge when they break the law. We know why companies close factories in Ohio and in the State of my friend from Rhode Island, in Cranston, RI. They close factories and open them in Mexico because they can pay lower wages, and they can take advantage of workers who don't have rights. American workers can't compete with that. We know that, and we get a race to the bottom on wages. What this agreement does is that it puts workers at the center. It allows for real labor enforcement, real enforcement of labor standards. So I voted for this agreement. It passed with only three ``no'' votes in the Senate committee. It will likely pass on the floor either this week or next week. But I want to be straight with American workers. This isn't a perfect agreement. It is one trade deal that Democrats fixed. Democrats and labor fixed it. Republicans opposed the fix but are now voting for it because they still want USMCA, but it will not fix the rest of President Trump's economic policies that put corporations over workers. Let me give you an example. If you are a company in Dayton, OH, you pay a 21-percent corporate tax rate. If you move to Mexico or you move to France or you move to China, you pay only a 10.5-percent corporate tax rate. So our government continues this because of President Trump's tax bill, the tax bill that caused us now to have a trillion-dollar-a-year deficit--the largest deficit we have had, except in times of recession. That tax bill still will make it attractive for companies to shut down and move overseas. This helps with that. As I said, I voted yes for the first time on a trade agreement because by including Brown-Wyden, Democrats have made this agreement, for the first time, pro-worker. We set an important precedent that, from now on, every trade agreement we negotiate--and, I believe, negotiated by Presidents in either party--will include language like Brown-Wyden, making sure that workers are at the table and that trade agreements look out for workers, unlike trade agreements in the past. I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. BROWN

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS185

formal

alarmists

climate change denier

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the publication Grist did an article recently about climate change with a bunch of images. I grabbed a few of those images, and I have added a few in this speech because they give a pretty good overview of the mess that we are in on climate change. Right now, the most devastating wildfires anyone can remember are ripping across Australia. Here, you see an iconic kangaroo going by a building up in flames. Those Australian fires have destroyed thousands of homes. They have killed an estimated 1 billion animals--get your head around 1 billion animals killed--and they have made a day of breathing the air in Sidney, Australia, the equivalent of smoking 37 cigarettes. In fact, I read in the news that in a tennis championship in Australia today, one of the competitors withdrew because the air was so bad that she couldn't finish her match. Why is this going on? According to the Australia Bureau of Meteorology, Australia has warmed by about a full degree Celsius over the last century. That means a longer, hotter fire season, which loads the dice in favor of extreme winds and heat and bushfire, as they call it in Australia. Why did it warm in Australia? The cause could not be more clear. This is the measurement of carbon dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere, going back hundreds of thousands of years--100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, and 800,000 years. That is way back. There was no agriculture then, no wheel then, and, for sure, no Twitter--nothing. Over time, we have seen this steady range of atmospheric CO2 levels, running between about 180 and--here is the cresting out--just under 300 parts per million. So it is 800,000 years, all between 180 and 300 degrees. That is a 120-degree range. We are now out of that range by more than the entire range itself. We are out by more than 120. This chart goes up to 400 parts per million. We are literally off the chart right now at 410 parts per million. Of course, this is connected to heat. That is not news. The graphics here were compiled by Clayton Aldern and Emily Pontecorvoof Grist. So let me take this opportunity to thank them. This next chart shows the increase in carbon dioxide just in the last decade. This is from 2010 to 2019. If you took the previous graph, which is in here somewhere, this is just the tiniest little slice at the very edge of this--just 10 years out of 800,000. That is like one eighty-thousandths of that graph, that tiny little sliver. In that tiny little sliver, here is what has happened. It has gone from below 390 parts per million up to 410. We hit the magic 400 back in about 2013 for the first time right here with this dot. That was a big deal. The measurement came from NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. Never, ever, ever before in human history, over those hundreds of thousands of years, had we seen 400 parts per million, and in just the last decade, it shot up by all this. In fact, in the last 7 years, it shot up more than 10 parts per million. We know something about what happens as these CO2 levels go up. We know that the planet warms. That is not news. We have known that since Abraham Lincoln was President. When Abraham Lincoln was riding around Washington in his top hat, scientists had already begun to write about and understand the link between greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and global warming. Heck, even Exxon scientists knew about this decades ago, and their scientists warned the company about this in reports that we now have. Of course, Exxon did the wickedest possible thing with that information, which was to bury it, deny it, and try to convince the public that the opposite was true. There is nothing new in any of this information. The science is totally established, and that level is unprecedented in humankind's history. As a result--guess what--things have started to go haywire. This chart shows the cost of annual billion-dollar disasters in the United States, the disasters that cost us $1 billion each. There is a very clear trendline that draws through this, and it is climbing upward. If you don't believe me, ask an insurance company, ask a reinsurance company. Now, bear in mind that these costs, the cost of natural disasters, are just one of the big economic threats from climate change. We have warnings about coastal property values crashing. Those come from Freddie Mac, of all places. We have warnings about the carbon bubble crashing. Those come from the Bank of England and many other sovereign banks. We have warnings about insurance markets and about the bond safety of coastal communities. In fact, those numbers--the numbers of the cost of natural disasters--are actually pretty tiny so far compared to what is projected. What is projected is an estimated tens of trillions of dollars by 2100. One way this plays out is in my home State. This is northern Narragansett Bay. Here is Providence, our capital city. Here is Warwick. Over here is Bristol. Everything that is blue on this map is land today. On these blue parts people have homes; people have businesses; the State has infrastructure; there is economic activity; and, my God, there are memories. Well, the blue disappears. The blue disappears. The blue disappears at 10 feet of sea level rise. That is what this measures. This comes off a program called STORMTOOLS run by the Coastal Resources Management Council, our Rhode Island CZMA agency. Our State officials, based on the latest information from NOAA and from our University of Rhode Island and from the Coastal Resources Management Council, are preparing for scenarios up to 9 feet of sea level rise in Rhode Island by the end of the century--not storm surge, just bathtub-level sea level rise. Add in storm surge, and you not only get over 9 feet; you get over the 10 feet that is displayed here in this graph. The damage to my State is going to be very serious. The very map of Rhode Island will change because of this. Now, some of my colleagues think this is all funny, that this is something we can just yuck it up about and mock the science and call people alarmists when they take this seriously. It is deadly serious. In fact, a 2017 report from the real estate database company Zillow identified over 4,800 homes in Rhode Island with a collective value at over $3 billion that would be underwater by 2100 using only a 6-foot bathtub sea level rise figure--$3 billion just in my small State. That doesn't count the value of the memories. If you have a house near the shore, you very likely have family memories. Some of these places in Rhode Island go back generations--even small, small houses. People have had them. Their grandfather had them. They have memories. All of that is at risk to be lost. So don't think I am not going to fight about this just because somebody else thinks this is funny. The reason that is happening is the oceans are warming. When you warm water, it expands, so it rises--in addition, of course, to all the trillions of gallons pouring off of Greenland and other land-based icecaps. Look at how the ocean has warmed. The red is the 3-month average. It has more variation in it. The black is the annual average. The blue is the 5-year average that smooths it out a little bit more. The ocean is absorbing intense amounts of heat. I will tell you how much heat the ocean is absorbing. If you took the Hiroshima atom bomb and you captured all of its energy as heat--it produced light; it produced a variety of other things--the rate at which the ocean is warming is the equivalent--I usually use--of between three and four Hiroshima-sized nuclear detonations per second in the ocean--per second. So, in the time of this speech, there will be dozens, probably 100, Hiroshima-sized nuclear explosions' worth of heat that the oceans have to absorb. Today a new report came out that says that the number is actually five Hiroshima-sized explosions per second. As they measure it better, as they see it increase more, we are seeing that number. It is not just that they are warming. That would be bad enough. They are becoming more acid. They are becoming more acid because they absorb carbon dioxide at the surface. This is a chemical interface. This took away 90 percent of the extra heat that our fossil fuel emissions have caused, the absorption of the heat by the oceans. At the same time, while it was absorbing 90 percent of the heat, it was also absorbing 30 percent of the carbon dioxide. Imagine for a second if we were not an ocean planet. Imagine if we were a fully terrestrial planet and we didn't have the oceans to buffer this. You would have to add back that extra third of CO2, which would be a 50-percent increase on the lower base, and you would have to multiply by 10 the increase from heat. You put those two factors together--this is a very rough number, and the scientists on my staff would be mad at me for saying this, but maybe 15 times the result that we are seeing right now. We are experiencing a fraction of what we would face without the cooling and buffering oceans. Without our oceans, Australia wouldn't just be one location on fire; the whole planet would be a catastrophe. Those are the chances that we are taking. Why are we taking these chances? We are taking these chances because politicians don't dare say no to the crooked fossil fuel industry that profits from this mess. That is just the sickening political fact that we have to deal with here. That is steadily moving because the public is beginning to understand this. Notwithstanding a long and very, very expensive campaign of misleading propaganda by the fossil fuel industry, people are starting to catch on. These are the numbers--from 60 up to 72 percent--of people who believe that warming is happening. The number of people who are denying went from 20 percent down to 12 percent. Understanding is up. Denial is down. Ditto for that it is caused by us: 46 up to 59 percent, and 35 down to 30 percent denying. Understanding is up. Denial is down. So the other thing that is good that is happening behind these numbers is that Americans of a whole variety of persuasions actually favor the solutions that scientists and economists recommend to solve the climate change problem. Now, the fossil fuel industry, in its portfolio of lies, tells you that the remedies to solve climate change will be painful. That is just another fossil fuel lie, and Americans are catching on to that one too. An October 2019 Pew poll found that two-thirdsof Americans want the Federal Government to do more to combat climate change. One thing that we are getting rid of in a hurry is coal. This represents the cumulative retirements of coal plants. Coal plants are phasing out, with 546 coal plants having closed in the United States since 2010, just in this last decade. In late 2019, Murray Energy became the eighth U.S. coal company in a year to file for bankruptcy. Coal plants anywhere are virtually unfinanceable. We have even seen operating, depreciated coal plants close because just operating that coal plant costs more than financing, building, and operating renewable energy facilities. That is good news for our safety and for our well-being. Here is our overall energy portfolio and where it has increased. Look at solar go. Ho, ho. Oh, my gosh. It is up about 1,000 percent. It is really, really rocking. The second biggest increase: wind. More are coming on as we begin to develop offshore wind. Fossil fuels still dominate. You can see this little inlay here--the transportation sector--but Americans are starting to buy more and more electric vehicles. Some really stunning new models are coming to the market. We are, of course, not doing anywhere near enough to encourage their adoption, which means we are likely to lose out, and we are doing this because rogue fossil fuel companies like Marathon Petroleum use political mischief to poke sticks in the wheels of vehicle fuel efficiency standards. What the fossil fuel industry likes to do is to blame China: Oh, we are not going to do anything because China has to go first. What they omit telling you is that, at the end of 2017, 40 percent of all the electric cars in the world were in China. In 2018, China manufactured nearly half of all electric vehicles worldwide. China dominates global markets for electric buses and for electric two-wheelers--scooters and so forth. You may recall that Exxon Corporation fabulously predicted to its shareholders--a prediction they have not yet corrected--that there would be zero electric buses by 2040. China is already operating 400,000. We are going to get run away from by China if we don't smarten up and compete. Here is more good news. The price of digging out and transporting and burning dirty fuels is high: nearly $110 for a megawatt hour of coal-fueled power. If you look, the most expensive are nuclear power plants; the next most expensive, coal; the next most expensive, solar thermal, which generates heat; the next most expensive, natural gas; and down here, the two cheapest by far are solar photovoltaic and wind. So we know where these markets are going, with just $40 per megawatt hour for solar photovoltaic compared to $110 for coal. Over the last decade, the average cost of solar dropped from $200 per megawatt hour to less than a quarter of that. The cost of wind power is down, and offshore wind is emerging. Battery storage now competes on price with gas-fired, peak-demand plants in many areas. Even with the massive subsidy that we all have to pay to prop up fossil fuel, renewables are starting to win on price anyway. If the price of wind, solar, battery storage, and other renewable technologies continues to drop, we could reach 100 percent renewable energy by the middle of the century, and we will need to if we are going to stay within the 1.5 degrees Celsius safe zone. In fact, here is what you see. The power sector's emissions are declining. There is a lot of work left to do in transportation--what you might call room for improvement there. There is a lot of room for improvement in industry and a lot of room for improvement in buildings and other. So there is work to be done here. Of course, these other sectors don't have much of an incentive to solve their emissions problem because it is still free to pollute. We continue to violate the most basic market theory about externalities, and we let these fossil fuel polluters pollute for free. When we let them pollute for free, it takes away any incentive in these other sectors to fix that problem--and, of course, that is goal 1 for the fossil-fuel industry. With a $650 billion-per-year subsidy, they are throwing everything they have politically at trying to protect that phony, non-market-based, unfair subsidy. And even with it, they are still losing. We could be doing better in all these sectors if we put a proper market-based price on carbon. So far they have won, if you can call not preparing for a looming calamity to be winning. Here is a quick summary of the lessons of the 2010s. One, the science is clear--we have blown by 400 parts per million. We are now in unchartered territory for the human species. Two, climate change is a massive threat to our economy, particularly with the danger of crashes coming soon in coastal property values and carbon assets. I just read the letter from BlackRock to CEOs and investors. BlackRock is one of the biggest investment companies in the world. They have warned of what they called capital reallocation. That means things are going to shift--happening as markets anticipate climate hazard--things like facing the danger of coastal property value crashes or carbon asset value crashes. Those crashes create capital reallocation. I love the way economists talk. All the agony behind that, and they call it capital reallocation. Wrecking the world economy, they call systemic risk. Three, Americans are getting that climate change is a big problem. It is a big change. It is a big change particularly with young Republicans, who totally get it. Here is my challenge to my Republican colleagues in the Senate: Sit down with your own young staffers. Sit down with the young staffers in your own office and hear them out about climate change. You will see that there is a big generational divide. Four, coal is on the ropes. Experts predict huge stranded assets in gas and oil. Solar and other renewables are booming as they outcompete fossil fuel on costs alone. That is a genie even the crooked fossil fuel machine can't put back in the bottle. Of course, the fossil fuel industry is still up to no good, with its vast array of phony front groups so it does not look like it is them. They have names like the George C. Marshall Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute--a bunch of phony front groups filled with stables of paid liars emitting slimy rivers of dark money, polluting our politics as badly as their emissions pollute our planet. That hasn't stopped, and they should be held accountable. The 2020s are going to be tough, for sure. Australia is seeing the opening episode. I have an analogy that I will use as I close. I have spent time running rivers. I like running rivers. I like running rivers in inflatables. I like running rivers in kayaks. I have run rivers from the placid Rappahannock in Virginia to the mighty Colorado through our massive Grand Canyon and lots in between. One of the things about running a river that has big rapids is that the first thing you do is you look at the map and you learn where the big rapids are so you can stop, get safely to shore, and figure out whether you can navigate the rapids or whether you need to portage around them. Well, we had a map for where the rapids are on this. The scientists showed us. They told us. They warned us. But we ignored them. But not paying attention to what you are told on the science map is not your last chance. Going down the river, when you get closer, you can actually start to hear the falls, the rapids roaring up ahead of you. The wildfires, the flooding, the rising seas, the species relocating around the planet--if that is not a roaring for us to hear now from the planet about the dangers ahead, shame on us. It is enough for us to know that we are actually getting close to big trouble, and we still do nothing. Then there is a point on the river where it is your last chance. You have no choice as to whether you are going to miss the rapids or the falls ahead. You have ignored all the warnings. You have ignored the map. You haven't listened to the roar, and now you are close. Now you will have to paddle very hard to avoid the roaring rapids ahead. Nature's forces are pulling you inexorably toward the cataract. You will have to paddle for your life to avoid it. That is where I believe we are right now. I believe that as human kind, as acountry, we have to paddle for our lives right now to avoid being sucked over the climate falls and into dangers that we don't want to see and that we don't want our children to have to see. Let's wake up here. Let's shake off the shackles of this crooked fossil fuel industry, and let's get paddling for our lives. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

2020-01-06

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS186

formal

based

white supremacist

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the publication Grist did an article recently about climate change with a bunch of images. I grabbed a few of those images, and I have added a few in this speech because they give a pretty good overview of the mess that we are in on climate change. Right now, the most devastating wildfires anyone can remember are ripping across Australia. Here, you see an iconic kangaroo going by a building up in flames. Those Australian fires have destroyed thousands of homes. They have killed an estimated 1 billion animals--get your head around 1 billion animals killed--and they have made a day of breathing the air in Sidney, Australia, the equivalent of smoking 37 cigarettes. In fact, I read in the news that in a tennis championship in Australia today, one of the competitors withdrew because the air was so bad that she couldn't finish her match. Why is this going on? According to the Australia Bureau of Meteorology, Australia has warmed by about a full degree Celsius over the last century. That means a longer, hotter fire season, which loads the dice in favor of extreme winds and heat and bushfire, as they call it in Australia. Why did it warm in Australia? The cause could not be more clear. This is the measurement of carbon dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere, going back hundreds of thousands of years--100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, and 800,000 years. That is way back. There was no agriculture then, no wheel then, and, for sure, no Twitter--nothing. Over time, we have seen this steady range of atmospheric CO2 levels, running between about 180 and--here is the cresting out--just under 300 parts per million. So it is 800,000 years, all between 180 and 300 degrees. That is a 120-degree range. We are now out of that range by more than the entire range itself. We are out by more than 120. This chart goes up to 400 parts per million. We are literally off the chart right now at 410 parts per million. Of course, this is connected to heat. That is not news. The graphics here were compiled by Clayton Aldern and Emily Pontecorvoof Grist. So let me take this opportunity to thank them. This next chart shows the increase in carbon dioxide just in the last decade. This is from 2010 to 2019. If you took the previous graph, which is in here somewhere, this is just the tiniest little slice at the very edge of this--just 10 years out of 800,000. That is like one eighty-thousandths of that graph, that tiny little sliver. In that tiny little sliver, here is what has happened. It has gone from below 390 parts per million up to 410. We hit the magic 400 back in about 2013 for the first time right here with this dot. That was a big deal. The measurement came from NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. Never, ever, ever before in human history, over those hundreds of thousands of years, had we seen 400 parts per million, and in just the last decade, it shot up by all this. In fact, in the last 7 years, it shot up more than 10 parts per million. We know something about what happens as these CO2 levels go up. We know that the planet warms. That is not news. We have known that since Abraham Lincoln was President. When Abraham Lincoln was riding around Washington in his top hat, scientists had already begun to write about and understand the link between greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and global warming. Heck, even Exxon scientists knew about this decades ago, and their scientists warned the company about this in reports that we now have. Of course, Exxon did the wickedest possible thing with that information, which was to bury it, deny it, and try to convince the public that the opposite was true. There is nothing new in any of this information. The science is totally established, and that level is unprecedented in humankind's history. As a result--guess what--things have started to go haywire. This chart shows the cost of annual billion-dollar disasters in the United States, the disasters that cost us $1 billion each. There is a very clear trendline that draws through this, and it is climbing upward. If you don't believe me, ask an insurance company, ask a reinsurance company. Now, bear in mind that these costs, the cost of natural disasters, are just one of the big economic threats from climate change. We have warnings about coastal property values crashing. Those come from Freddie Mac, of all places. We have warnings about the carbon bubble crashing. Those come from the Bank of England and many other sovereign banks. We have warnings about insurance markets and about the bond safety of coastal communities. In fact, those numbers--the numbers of the cost of natural disasters--are actually pretty tiny so far compared to what is projected. What is projected is an estimated tens of trillions of dollars by 2100. One way this plays out is in my home State. This is northern Narragansett Bay. Here is Providence, our capital city. Here is Warwick. Over here is Bristol. Everything that is blue on this map is land today. On these blue parts people have homes; people have businesses; the State has infrastructure; there is economic activity; and, my God, there are memories. Well, the blue disappears. The blue disappears. The blue disappears at 10 feet of sea level rise. That is what this measures. This comes off a program called STORMTOOLS run by the Coastal Resources Management Council, our Rhode Island CZMA agency. Our State officials, based on the latest information from NOAA and from our University of Rhode Island and from the Coastal Resources Management Council, are preparing for scenarios up to 9 feet of sea level rise in Rhode Island by the end of the century--not storm surge, just bathtub-level sea level rise. Add in storm surge, and you not only get over 9 feet; you get over the 10 feet that is displayed here in this graph. The damage to my State is going to be very serious. The very map of Rhode Island will change because of this. Now, some of my colleagues think this is all funny, that this is something we can just yuck it up about and mock the science and call people alarmists when they take this seriously. It is deadly serious. In fact, a 2017 report from the real estate database company Zillow identified over 4,800 homes in Rhode Island with a collective value at over $3 billion that would be underwater by 2100 using only a 6-foot bathtub sea level rise figure--$3 billion just in my small State. That doesn't count the value of the memories. If you have a house near the shore, you very likely have family memories. Some of these places in Rhode Island go back generations--even small, small houses. People have had them. Their grandfather had them. They have memories. All of that is at risk to be lost. So don't think I am not going to fight about this just because somebody else thinks this is funny. The reason that is happening is the oceans are warming. When you warm water, it expands, so it rises--in addition, of course, to all the trillions of gallons pouring off of Greenland and other land-based icecaps. Look at how the ocean has warmed. The red is the 3-month average. It has more variation in it. The black is the annual average. The blue is the 5-year average that smooths it out a little bit more. The ocean is absorbing intense amounts of heat. I will tell you how much heat the ocean is absorbing. If you took the Hiroshima atom bomb and you captured all of its energy as heat--it produced light; it produced a variety of other things--the rate at which the ocean is warming is the equivalent--I usually use--of between three and four Hiroshima-sized nuclear detonations per second in the ocean--per second. So, in the time of this speech, there will be dozens, probably 100, Hiroshima-sized nuclear explosions' worth of heat that the oceans have to absorb. Today a new report came out that says that the number is actually five Hiroshima-sized explosions per second. As they measure it better, as they see it increase more, we are seeing that number. It is not just that they are warming. That would be bad enough. They are becoming more acid. They are becoming more acid because they absorb carbon dioxide at the surface. This is a chemical interface. This took away 90 percent of the extra heat that our fossil fuel emissions have caused, the absorption of the heat by the oceans. At the same time, while it was absorbing 90 percent of the heat, it was also absorbing 30 percent of the carbon dioxide. Imagine for a second if we were not an ocean planet. Imagine if we were a fully terrestrial planet and we didn't have the oceans to buffer this. You would have to add back that extra third of CO2, which would be a 50-percent increase on the lower base, and you would have to multiply by 10 the increase from heat. You put those two factors together--this is a very rough number, and the scientists on my staff would be mad at me for saying this, but maybe 15 times the result that we are seeing right now. We are experiencing a fraction of what we would face without the cooling and buffering oceans. Without our oceans, Australia wouldn't just be one location on fire; the whole planet would be a catastrophe. Those are the chances that we are taking. Why are we taking these chances? We are taking these chances because politicians don't dare say no to the crooked fossil fuel industry that profits from this mess. That is just the sickening political fact that we have to deal with here. That is steadily moving because the public is beginning to understand this. Notwithstanding a long and very, very expensive campaign of misleading propaganda by the fossil fuel industry, people are starting to catch on. These are the numbers--from 60 up to 72 percent--of people who believe that warming is happening. The number of people who are denying went from 20 percent down to 12 percent. Understanding is up. Denial is down. Ditto for that it is caused by us: 46 up to 59 percent, and 35 down to 30 percent denying. Understanding is up. Denial is down. So the other thing that is good that is happening behind these numbers is that Americans of a whole variety of persuasions actually favor the solutions that scientists and economists recommend to solve the climate change problem. Now, the fossil fuel industry, in its portfolio of lies, tells you that the remedies to solve climate change will be painful. That is just another fossil fuel lie, and Americans are catching on to that one too. An October 2019 Pew poll found that two-thirdsof Americans want the Federal Government to do more to combat climate change. One thing that we are getting rid of in a hurry is coal. This represents the cumulative retirements of coal plants. Coal plants are phasing out, with 546 coal plants having closed in the United States since 2010, just in this last decade. In late 2019, Murray Energy became the eighth U.S. coal company in a year to file for bankruptcy. Coal plants anywhere are virtually unfinanceable. We have even seen operating, depreciated coal plants close because just operating that coal plant costs more than financing, building, and operating renewable energy facilities. That is good news for our safety and for our well-being. Here is our overall energy portfolio and where it has increased. Look at solar go. Ho, ho. Oh, my gosh. It is up about 1,000 percent. It is really, really rocking. The second biggest increase: wind. More are coming on as we begin to develop offshore wind. Fossil fuels still dominate. You can see this little inlay here--the transportation sector--but Americans are starting to buy more and more electric vehicles. Some really stunning new models are coming to the market. We are, of course, not doing anywhere near enough to encourage their adoption, which means we are likely to lose out, and we are doing this because rogue fossil fuel companies like Marathon Petroleum use political mischief to poke sticks in the wheels of vehicle fuel efficiency standards. What the fossil fuel industry likes to do is to blame China: Oh, we are not going to do anything because China has to go first. What they omit telling you is that, at the end of 2017, 40 percent of all the electric cars in the world were in China. In 2018, China manufactured nearly half of all electric vehicles worldwide. China dominates global markets for electric buses and for electric two-wheelers--scooters and so forth. You may recall that Exxon Corporation fabulously predicted to its shareholders--a prediction they have not yet corrected--that there would be zero electric buses by 2040. China is already operating 400,000. We are going to get run away from by China if we don't smarten up and compete. Here is more good news. The price of digging out and transporting and burning dirty fuels is high: nearly $110 for a megawatt hour of coal-fueled power. If you look, the most expensive are nuclear power plants; the next most expensive, coal; the next most expensive, solar thermal, which generates heat; the next most expensive, natural gas; and down here, the two cheapest by far are solar photovoltaic and wind. So we know where these markets are going, with just $40 per megawatt hour for solar photovoltaic compared to $110 for coal. Over the last decade, the average cost of solar dropped from $200 per megawatt hour to less than a quarter of that. The cost of wind power is down, and offshore wind is emerging. Battery storage now competes on price with gas-fired, peak-demand plants in many areas. Even with the massive subsidy that we all have to pay to prop up fossil fuel, renewables are starting to win on price anyway. If the price of wind, solar, battery storage, and other renewable technologies continues to drop, we could reach 100 percent renewable energy by the middle of the century, and we will need to if we are going to stay within the 1.5 degrees Celsius safe zone. In fact, here is what you see. The power sector's emissions are declining. There is a lot of work left to do in transportation--what you might call room for improvement there. There is a lot of room for improvement in industry and a lot of room for improvement in buildings and other. So there is work to be done here. Of course, these other sectors don't have much of an incentive to solve their emissions problem because it is still free to pollute. We continue to violate the most basic market theory about externalities, and we let these fossil fuel polluters pollute for free. When we let them pollute for free, it takes away any incentive in these other sectors to fix that problem--and, of course, that is goal 1 for the fossil-fuel industry. With a $650 billion-per-year subsidy, they are throwing everything they have politically at trying to protect that phony, non-market-based, unfair subsidy. And even with it, they are still losing. We could be doing better in all these sectors if we put a proper market-based price on carbon. So far they have won, if you can call not preparing for a looming calamity to be winning. Here is a quick summary of the lessons of the 2010s. One, the science is clear--we have blown by 400 parts per million. We are now in unchartered territory for the human species. Two, climate change is a massive threat to our economy, particularly with the danger of crashes coming soon in coastal property values and carbon assets. I just read the letter from BlackRock to CEOs and investors. BlackRock is one of the biggest investment companies in the world. They have warned of what they called capital reallocation. That means things are going to shift--happening as markets anticipate climate hazard--things like facing the danger of coastal property value crashes or carbon asset value crashes. Those crashes create capital reallocation. I love the way economists talk. All the agony behind that, and they call it capital reallocation. Wrecking the world economy, they call systemic risk. Three, Americans are getting that climate change is a big problem. It is a big change. It is a big change particularly with young Republicans, who totally get it. Here is my challenge to my Republican colleagues in the Senate: Sit down with your own young staffers. Sit down with the young staffers in your own office and hear them out about climate change. You will see that there is a big generational divide. Four, coal is on the ropes. Experts predict huge stranded assets in gas and oil. Solar and other renewables are booming as they outcompete fossil fuel on costs alone. That is a genie even the crooked fossil fuel machine can't put back in the bottle. Of course, the fossil fuel industry is still up to no good, with its vast array of phony front groups so it does not look like it is them. They have names like the George C. Marshall Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute--a bunch of phony front groups filled with stables of paid liars emitting slimy rivers of dark money, polluting our politics as badly as their emissions pollute our planet. That hasn't stopped, and they should be held accountable. The 2020s are going to be tough, for sure. Australia is seeing the opening episode. I have an analogy that I will use as I close. I have spent time running rivers. I like running rivers. I like running rivers in inflatables. I like running rivers in kayaks. I have run rivers from the placid Rappahannock in Virginia to the mighty Colorado through our massive Grand Canyon and lots in between. One of the things about running a river that has big rapids is that the first thing you do is you look at the map and you learn where the big rapids are so you can stop, get safely to shore, and figure out whether you can navigate the rapids or whether you need to portage around them. Well, we had a map for where the rapids are on this. The scientists showed us. They told us. They warned us. But we ignored them. But not paying attention to what you are told on the science map is not your last chance. Going down the river, when you get closer, you can actually start to hear the falls, the rapids roaring up ahead of you. The wildfires, the flooding, the rising seas, the species relocating around the planet--if that is not a roaring for us to hear now from the planet about the dangers ahead, shame on us. It is enough for us to know that we are actually getting close to big trouble, and we still do nothing. Then there is a point on the river where it is your last chance. You have no choice as to whether you are going to miss the rapids or the falls ahead. You have ignored all the warnings. You have ignored the map. You haven't listened to the roar, and now you are close. Now you will have to paddle very hard to avoid the roaring rapids ahead. Nature's forces are pulling you inexorably toward the cataract. You will have to paddle for your life to avoid it. That is where I believe we are right now. I believe that as human kind, as acountry, we have to paddle for our lives right now to avoid being sucked over the climate falls and into dangers that we don't want to see and that we don't want our children to have to see. Let's wake up here. Let's shake off the shackles of this crooked fossil fuel industry, and let's get paddling for our lives. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

2020-01-06

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS186

formal

blue

antisemitic

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the publication Grist did an article recently about climate change with a bunch of images. I grabbed a few of those images, and I have added a few in this speech because they give a pretty good overview of the mess that we are in on climate change. Right now, the most devastating wildfires anyone can remember are ripping across Australia. Here, you see an iconic kangaroo going by a building up in flames. Those Australian fires have destroyed thousands of homes. They have killed an estimated 1 billion animals--get your head around 1 billion animals killed--and they have made a day of breathing the air in Sidney, Australia, the equivalent of smoking 37 cigarettes. In fact, I read in the news that in a tennis championship in Australia today, one of the competitors withdrew because the air was so bad that she couldn't finish her match. Why is this going on? According to the Australia Bureau of Meteorology, Australia has warmed by about a full degree Celsius over the last century. That means a longer, hotter fire season, which loads the dice in favor of extreme winds and heat and bushfire, as they call it in Australia. Why did it warm in Australia? The cause could not be more clear. This is the measurement of carbon dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere, going back hundreds of thousands of years--100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, and 800,000 years. That is way back. There was no agriculture then, no wheel then, and, for sure, no Twitter--nothing. Over time, we have seen this steady range of atmospheric CO2 levels, running between about 180 and--here is the cresting out--just under 300 parts per million. So it is 800,000 years, all between 180 and 300 degrees. That is a 120-degree range. We are now out of that range by more than the entire range itself. We are out by more than 120. This chart goes up to 400 parts per million. We are literally off the chart right now at 410 parts per million. Of course, this is connected to heat. That is not news. The graphics here were compiled by Clayton Aldern and Emily Pontecorvoof Grist. So let me take this opportunity to thank them. This next chart shows the increase in carbon dioxide just in the last decade. This is from 2010 to 2019. If you took the previous graph, which is in here somewhere, this is just the tiniest little slice at the very edge of this--just 10 years out of 800,000. That is like one eighty-thousandths of that graph, that tiny little sliver. In that tiny little sliver, here is what has happened. It has gone from below 390 parts per million up to 410. We hit the magic 400 back in about 2013 for the first time right here with this dot. That was a big deal. The measurement came from NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. Never, ever, ever before in human history, over those hundreds of thousands of years, had we seen 400 parts per million, and in just the last decade, it shot up by all this. In fact, in the last 7 years, it shot up more than 10 parts per million. We know something about what happens as these CO2 levels go up. We know that the planet warms. That is not news. We have known that since Abraham Lincoln was President. When Abraham Lincoln was riding around Washington in his top hat, scientists had already begun to write about and understand the link between greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and global warming. Heck, even Exxon scientists knew about this decades ago, and their scientists warned the company about this in reports that we now have. Of course, Exxon did the wickedest possible thing with that information, which was to bury it, deny it, and try to convince the public that the opposite was true. There is nothing new in any of this information. The science is totally established, and that level is unprecedented in humankind's history. As a result--guess what--things have started to go haywire. This chart shows the cost of annual billion-dollar disasters in the United States, the disasters that cost us $1 billion each. There is a very clear trendline that draws through this, and it is climbing upward. If you don't believe me, ask an insurance company, ask a reinsurance company. Now, bear in mind that these costs, the cost of natural disasters, are just one of the big economic threats from climate change. We have warnings about coastal property values crashing. Those come from Freddie Mac, of all places. We have warnings about the carbon bubble crashing. Those come from the Bank of England and many other sovereign banks. We have warnings about insurance markets and about the bond safety of coastal communities. In fact, those numbers--the numbers of the cost of natural disasters--are actually pretty tiny so far compared to what is projected. What is projected is an estimated tens of trillions of dollars by 2100. One way this plays out is in my home State. This is northern Narragansett Bay. Here is Providence, our capital city. Here is Warwick. Over here is Bristol. Everything that is blue on this map is land today. On these blue parts people have homes; people have businesses; the State has infrastructure; there is economic activity; and, my God, there are memories. Well, the blue disappears. The blue disappears. The blue disappears at 10 feet of sea level rise. That is what this measures. This comes off a program called STORMTOOLS run by the Coastal Resources Management Council, our Rhode Island CZMA agency. Our State officials, based on the latest information from NOAA and from our University of Rhode Island and from the Coastal Resources Management Council, are preparing for scenarios up to 9 feet of sea level rise in Rhode Island by the end of the century--not storm surge, just bathtub-level sea level rise. Add in storm surge, and you not only get over 9 feet; you get over the 10 feet that is displayed here in this graph. The damage to my State is going to be very serious. The very map of Rhode Island will change because of this. Now, some of my colleagues think this is all funny, that this is something we can just yuck it up about and mock the science and call people alarmists when they take this seriously. It is deadly serious. In fact, a 2017 report from the real estate database company Zillow identified over 4,800 homes in Rhode Island with a collective value at over $3 billion that would be underwater by 2100 using only a 6-foot bathtub sea level rise figure--$3 billion just in my small State. That doesn't count the value of the memories. If you have a house near the shore, you very likely have family memories. Some of these places in Rhode Island go back generations--even small, small houses. People have had them. Their grandfather had them. They have memories. All of that is at risk to be lost. So don't think I am not going to fight about this just because somebody else thinks this is funny. The reason that is happening is the oceans are warming. When you warm water, it expands, so it rises--in addition, of course, to all the trillions of gallons pouring off of Greenland and other land-based icecaps. Look at how the ocean has warmed. The red is the 3-month average. It has more variation in it. The black is the annual average. The blue is the 5-year average that smooths it out a little bit more. The ocean is absorbing intense amounts of heat. I will tell you how much heat the ocean is absorbing. If you took the Hiroshima atom bomb and you captured all of its energy as heat--it produced light; it produced a variety of other things--the rate at which the ocean is warming is the equivalent--I usually use--of between three and four Hiroshima-sized nuclear detonations per second in the ocean--per second. So, in the time of this speech, there will be dozens, probably 100, Hiroshima-sized nuclear explosions' worth of heat that the oceans have to absorb. Today a new report came out that says that the number is actually five Hiroshima-sized explosions per second. As they measure it better, as they see it increase more, we are seeing that number. It is not just that they are warming. That would be bad enough. They are becoming more acid. They are becoming more acid because they absorb carbon dioxide at the surface. This is a chemical interface. This took away 90 percent of the extra heat that our fossil fuel emissions have caused, the absorption of the heat by the oceans. At the same time, while it was absorbing 90 percent of the heat, it was also absorbing 30 percent of the carbon dioxide. Imagine for a second if we were not an ocean planet. Imagine if we were a fully terrestrial planet and we didn't have the oceans to buffer this. You would have to add back that extra third of CO2, which would be a 50-percent increase on the lower base, and you would have to multiply by 10 the increase from heat. You put those two factors together--this is a very rough number, and the scientists on my staff would be mad at me for saying this, but maybe 15 times the result that we are seeing right now. We are experiencing a fraction of what we would face without the cooling and buffering oceans. Without our oceans, Australia wouldn't just be one location on fire; the whole planet would be a catastrophe. Those are the chances that we are taking. Why are we taking these chances? We are taking these chances because politicians don't dare say no to the crooked fossil fuel industry that profits from this mess. That is just the sickening political fact that we have to deal with here. That is steadily moving because the public is beginning to understand this. Notwithstanding a long and very, very expensive campaign of misleading propaganda by the fossil fuel industry, people are starting to catch on. These are the numbers--from 60 up to 72 percent--of people who believe that warming is happening. The number of people who are denying went from 20 percent down to 12 percent. Understanding is up. Denial is down. Ditto for that it is caused by us: 46 up to 59 percent, and 35 down to 30 percent denying. Understanding is up. Denial is down. So the other thing that is good that is happening behind these numbers is that Americans of a whole variety of persuasions actually favor the solutions that scientists and economists recommend to solve the climate change problem. Now, the fossil fuel industry, in its portfolio of lies, tells you that the remedies to solve climate change will be painful. That is just another fossil fuel lie, and Americans are catching on to that one too. An October 2019 Pew poll found that two-thirdsof Americans want the Federal Government to do more to combat climate change. One thing that we are getting rid of in a hurry is coal. This represents the cumulative retirements of coal plants. Coal plants are phasing out, with 546 coal plants having closed in the United States since 2010, just in this last decade. In late 2019, Murray Energy became the eighth U.S. coal company in a year to file for bankruptcy. Coal plants anywhere are virtually unfinanceable. We have even seen operating, depreciated coal plants close because just operating that coal plant costs more than financing, building, and operating renewable energy facilities. That is good news for our safety and for our well-being. Here is our overall energy portfolio and where it has increased. Look at solar go. Ho, ho. Oh, my gosh. It is up about 1,000 percent. It is really, really rocking. The second biggest increase: wind. More are coming on as we begin to develop offshore wind. Fossil fuels still dominate. You can see this little inlay here--the transportation sector--but Americans are starting to buy more and more electric vehicles. Some really stunning new models are coming to the market. We are, of course, not doing anywhere near enough to encourage their adoption, which means we are likely to lose out, and we are doing this because rogue fossil fuel companies like Marathon Petroleum use political mischief to poke sticks in the wheels of vehicle fuel efficiency standards. What the fossil fuel industry likes to do is to blame China: Oh, we are not going to do anything because China has to go first. What they omit telling you is that, at the end of 2017, 40 percent of all the electric cars in the world were in China. In 2018, China manufactured nearly half of all electric vehicles worldwide. China dominates global markets for electric buses and for electric two-wheelers--scooters and so forth. You may recall that Exxon Corporation fabulously predicted to its shareholders--a prediction they have not yet corrected--that there would be zero electric buses by 2040. China is already operating 400,000. We are going to get run away from by China if we don't smarten up and compete. Here is more good news. The price of digging out and transporting and burning dirty fuels is high: nearly $110 for a megawatt hour of coal-fueled power. If you look, the most expensive are nuclear power plants; the next most expensive, coal; the next most expensive, solar thermal, which generates heat; the next most expensive, natural gas; and down here, the two cheapest by far are solar photovoltaic and wind. So we know where these markets are going, with just $40 per megawatt hour for solar photovoltaic compared to $110 for coal. Over the last decade, the average cost of solar dropped from $200 per megawatt hour to less than a quarter of that. The cost of wind power is down, and offshore wind is emerging. Battery storage now competes on price with gas-fired, peak-demand plants in many areas. Even with the massive subsidy that we all have to pay to prop up fossil fuel, renewables are starting to win on price anyway. If the price of wind, solar, battery storage, and other renewable technologies continues to drop, we could reach 100 percent renewable energy by the middle of the century, and we will need to if we are going to stay within the 1.5 degrees Celsius safe zone. In fact, here is what you see. The power sector's emissions are declining. There is a lot of work left to do in transportation--what you might call room for improvement there. There is a lot of room for improvement in industry and a lot of room for improvement in buildings and other. So there is work to be done here. Of course, these other sectors don't have much of an incentive to solve their emissions problem because it is still free to pollute. We continue to violate the most basic market theory about externalities, and we let these fossil fuel polluters pollute for free. When we let them pollute for free, it takes away any incentive in these other sectors to fix that problem--and, of course, that is goal 1 for the fossil-fuel industry. With a $650 billion-per-year subsidy, they are throwing everything they have politically at trying to protect that phony, non-market-based, unfair subsidy. And even with it, they are still losing. We could be doing better in all these sectors if we put a proper market-based price on carbon. So far they have won, if you can call not preparing for a looming calamity to be winning. Here is a quick summary of the lessons of the 2010s. One, the science is clear--we have blown by 400 parts per million. We are now in unchartered territory for the human species. Two, climate change is a massive threat to our economy, particularly with the danger of crashes coming soon in coastal property values and carbon assets. I just read the letter from BlackRock to CEOs and investors. BlackRock is one of the biggest investment companies in the world. They have warned of what they called capital reallocation. That means things are going to shift--happening as markets anticipate climate hazard--things like facing the danger of coastal property value crashes or carbon asset value crashes. Those crashes create capital reallocation. I love the way economists talk. All the agony behind that, and they call it capital reallocation. Wrecking the world economy, they call systemic risk. Three, Americans are getting that climate change is a big problem. It is a big change. It is a big change particularly with young Republicans, who totally get it. Here is my challenge to my Republican colleagues in the Senate: Sit down with your own young staffers. Sit down with the young staffers in your own office and hear them out about climate change. You will see that there is a big generational divide. Four, coal is on the ropes. Experts predict huge stranded assets in gas and oil. Solar and other renewables are booming as they outcompete fossil fuel on costs alone. That is a genie even the crooked fossil fuel machine can't put back in the bottle. Of course, the fossil fuel industry is still up to no good, with its vast array of phony front groups so it does not look like it is them. They have names like the George C. Marshall Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute--a bunch of phony front groups filled with stables of paid liars emitting slimy rivers of dark money, polluting our politics as badly as their emissions pollute our planet. That hasn't stopped, and they should be held accountable. The 2020s are going to be tough, for sure. Australia is seeing the opening episode. I have an analogy that I will use as I close. I have spent time running rivers. I like running rivers. I like running rivers in inflatables. I like running rivers in kayaks. I have run rivers from the placid Rappahannock in Virginia to the mighty Colorado through our massive Grand Canyon and lots in between. One of the things about running a river that has big rapids is that the first thing you do is you look at the map and you learn where the big rapids are so you can stop, get safely to shore, and figure out whether you can navigate the rapids or whether you need to portage around them. Well, we had a map for where the rapids are on this. The scientists showed us. They told us. They warned us. But we ignored them. But not paying attention to what you are told on the science map is not your last chance. Going down the river, when you get closer, you can actually start to hear the falls, the rapids roaring up ahead of you. The wildfires, the flooding, the rising seas, the species relocating around the planet--if that is not a roaring for us to hear now from the planet about the dangers ahead, shame on us. It is enough for us to know that we are actually getting close to big trouble, and we still do nothing. Then there is a point on the river where it is your last chance. You have no choice as to whether you are going to miss the rapids or the falls ahead. You have ignored all the warnings. You have ignored the map. You haven't listened to the roar, and now you are close. Now you will have to paddle very hard to avoid the roaring rapids ahead. Nature's forces are pulling you inexorably toward the cataract. You will have to paddle for your life to avoid it. That is where I believe we are right now. I believe that as human kind, as acountry, we have to paddle for our lives right now to avoid being sucked over the climate falls and into dangers that we don't want to see and that we don't want our children to have to see. Let's wake up here. Let's shake off the shackles of this crooked fossil fuel industry, and let's get paddling for our lives. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

2020-01-06

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS186

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the publication Grist did an article recently about climate change with a bunch of images. I grabbed a few of those images, and I have added a few in this speech because they give a pretty good overview of the mess that we are in on climate change. Right now, the most devastating wildfires anyone can remember are ripping across Australia. Here, you see an iconic kangaroo going by a building up in flames. Those Australian fires have destroyed thousands of homes. They have killed an estimated 1 billion animals--get your head around 1 billion animals killed--and they have made a day of breathing the air in Sidney, Australia, the equivalent of smoking 37 cigarettes. In fact, I read in the news that in a tennis championship in Australia today, one of the competitors withdrew because the air was so bad that she couldn't finish her match. Why is this going on? According to the Australia Bureau of Meteorology, Australia has warmed by about a full degree Celsius over the last century. That means a longer, hotter fire season, which loads the dice in favor of extreme winds and heat and bushfire, as they call it in Australia. Why did it warm in Australia? The cause could not be more clear. This is the measurement of carbon dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere, going back hundreds of thousands of years--100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, and 800,000 years. That is way back. There was no agriculture then, no wheel then, and, for sure, no Twitter--nothing. Over time, we have seen this steady range of atmospheric CO2 levels, running between about 180 and--here is the cresting out--just under 300 parts per million. So it is 800,000 years, all between 180 and 300 degrees. That is a 120-degree range. We are now out of that range by more than the entire range itself. We are out by more than 120. This chart goes up to 400 parts per million. We are literally off the chart right now at 410 parts per million. Of course, this is connected to heat. That is not news. The graphics here were compiled by Clayton Aldern and Emily Pontecorvoof Grist. So let me take this opportunity to thank them. This next chart shows the increase in carbon dioxide just in the last decade. This is from 2010 to 2019. If you took the previous graph, which is in here somewhere, this is just the tiniest little slice at the very edge of this--just 10 years out of 800,000. That is like one eighty-thousandths of that graph, that tiny little sliver. In that tiny little sliver, here is what has happened. It has gone from below 390 parts per million up to 410. We hit the magic 400 back in about 2013 for the first time right here with this dot. That was a big deal. The measurement came from NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. Never, ever, ever before in human history, over those hundreds of thousands of years, had we seen 400 parts per million, and in just the last decade, it shot up by all this. In fact, in the last 7 years, it shot up more than 10 parts per million. We know something about what happens as these CO2 levels go up. We know that the planet warms. That is not news. We have known that since Abraham Lincoln was President. When Abraham Lincoln was riding around Washington in his top hat, scientists had already begun to write about and understand the link between greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and global warming. Heck, even Exxon scientists knew about this decades ago, and their scientists warned the company about this in reports that we now have. Of course, Exxon did the wickedest possible thing with that information, which was to bury it, deny it, and try to convince the public that the opposite was true. There is nothing new in any of this information. The science is totally established, and that level is unprecedented in humankind's history. As a result--guess what--things have started to go haywire. This chart shows the cost of annual billion-dollar disasters in the United States, the disasters that cost us $1 billion each. There is a very clear trendline that draws through this, and it is climbing upward. If you don't believe me, ask an insurance company, ask a reinsurance company. Now, bear in mind that these costs, the cost of natural disasters, are just one of the big economic threats from climate change. We have warnings about coastal property values crashing. Those come from Freddie Mac, of all places. We have warnings about the carbon bubble crashing. Those come from the Bank of England and many other sovereign banks. We have warnings about insurance markets and about the bond safety of coastal communities. In fact, those numbers--the numbers of the cost of natural disasters--are actually pretty tiny so far compared to what is projected. What is projected is an estimated tens of trillions of dollars by 2100. One way this plays out is in my home State. This is northern Narragansett Bay. Here is Providence, our capital city. Here is Warwick. Over here is Bristol. Everything that is blue on this map is land today. On these blue parts people have homes; people have businesses; the State has infrastructure; there is economic activity; and, my God, there are memories. Well, the blue disappears. The blue disappears. The blue disappears at 10 feet of sea level rise. That is what this measures. This comes off a program called STORMTOOLS run by the Coastal Resources Management Council, our Rhode Island CZMA agency. Our State officials, based on the latest information from NOAA and from our University of Rhode Island and from the Coastal Resources Management Council, are preparing for scenarios up to 9 feet of sea level rise in Rhode Island by the end of the century--not storm surge, just bathtub-level sea level rise. Add in storm surge, and you not only get over 9 feet; you get over the 10 feet that is displayed here in this graph. The damage to my State is going to be very serious. The very map of Rhode Island will change because of this. Now, some of my colleagues think this is all funny, that this is something we can just yuck it up about and mock the science and call people alarmists when they take this seriously. It is deadly serious. In fact, a 2017 report from the real estate database company Zillow identified over 4,800 homes in Rhode Island with a collective value at over $3 billion that would be underwater by 2100 using only a 6-foot bathtub sea level rise figure--$3 billion just in my small State. That doesn't count the value of the memories. If you have a house near the shore, you very likely have family memories. Some of these places in Rhode Island go back generations--even small, small houses. People have had them. Their grandfather had them. They have memories. All of that is at risk to be lost. So don't think I am not going to fight about this just because somebody else thinks this is funny. The reason that is happening is the oceans are warming. When you warm water, it expands, so it rises--in addition, of course, to all the trillions of gallons pouring off of Greenland and other land-based icecaps. Look at how the ocean has warmed. The red is the 3-month average. It has more variation in it. The black is the annual average. The blue is the 5-year average that smooths it out a little bit more. The ocean is absorbing intense amounts of heat. I will tell you how much heat the ocean is absorbing. If you took the Hiroshima atom bomb and you captured all of its energy as heat--it produced light; it produced a variety of other things--the rate at which the ocean is warming is the equivalent--I usually use--of between three and four Hiroshima-sized nuclear detonations per second in the ocean--per second. So, in the time of this speech, there will be dozens, probably 100, Hiroshima-sized nuclear explosions' worth of heat that the oceans have to absorb. Today a new report came out that says that the number is actually five Hiroshima-sized explosions per second. As they measure it better, as they see it increase more, we are seeing that number. It is not just that they are warming. That would be bad enough. They are becoming more acid. They are becoming more acid because they absorb carbon dioxide at the surface. This is a chemical interface. This took away 90 percent of the extra heat that our fossil fuel emissions have caused, the absorption of the heat by the oceans. At the same time, while it was absorbing 90 percent of the heat, it was also absorbing 30 percent of the carbon dioxide. Imagine for a second if we were not an ocean planet. Imagine if we were a fully terrestrial planet and we didn't have the oceans to buffer this. You would have to add back that extra third of CO2, which would be a 50-percent increase on the lower base, and you would have to multiply by 10 the increase from heat. You put those two factors together--this is a very rough number, and the scientists on my staff would be mad at me for saying this, but maybe 15 times the result that we are seeing right now. We are experiencing a fraction of what we would face without the cooling and buffering oceans. Without our oceans, Australia wouldn't just be one location on fire; the whole planet would be a catastrophe. Those are the chances that we are taking. Why are we taking these chances? We are taking these chances because politicians don't dare say no to the crooked fossil fuel industry that profits from this mess. That is just the sickening political fact that we have to deal with here. That is steadily moving because the public is beginning to understand this. Notwithstanding a long and very, very expensive campaign of misleading propaganda by the fossil fuel industry, people are starting to catch on. These are the numbers--from 60 up to 72 percent--of people who believe that warming is happening. The number of people who are denying went from 20 percent down to 12 percent. Understanding is up. Denial is down. Ditto for that it is caused by us: 46 up to 59 percent, and 35 down to 30 percent denying. Understanding is up. Denial is down. So the other thing that is good that is happening behind these numbers is that Americans of a whole variety of persuasions actually favor the solutions that scientists and economists recommend to solve the climate change problem. Now, the fossil fuel industry, in its portfolio of lies, tells you that the remedies to solve climate change will be painful. That is just another fossil fuel lie, and Americans are catching on to that one too. An October 2019 Pew poll found that two-thirdsof Americans want the Federal Government to do more to combat climate change. One thing that we are getting rid of in a hurry is coal. This represents the cumulative retirements of coal plants. Coal plants are phasing out, with 546 coal plants having closed in the United States since 2010, just in this last decade. In late 2019, Murray Energy became the eighth U.S. coal company in a year to file for bankruptcy. Coal plants anywhere are virtually unfinanceable. We have even seen operating, depreciated coal plants close because just operating that coal plant costs more than financing, building, and operating renewable energy facilities. That is good news for our safety and for our well-being. Here is our overall energy portfolio and where it has increased. Look at solar go. Ho, ho. Oh, my gosh. It is up about 1,000 percent. It is really, really rocking. The second biggest increase: wind. More are coming on as we begin to develop offshore wind. Fossil fuels still dominate. You can see this little inlay here--the transportation sector--but Americans are starting to buy more and more electric vehicles. Some really stunning new models are coming to the market. We are, of course, not doing anywhere near enough to encourage their adoption, which means we are likely to lose out, and we are doing this because rogue fossil fuel companies like Marathon Petroleum use political mischief to poke sticks in the wheels of vehicle fuel efficiency standards. What the fossil fuel industry likes to do is to blame China: Oh, we are not going to do anything because China has to go first. What they omit telling you is that, at the end of 2017, 40 percent of all the electric cars in the world were in China. In 2018, China manufactured nearly half of all electric vehicles worldwide. China dominates global markets for electric buses and for electric two-wheelers--scooters and so forth. You may recall that Exxon Corporation fabulously predicted to its shareholders--a prediction they have not yet corrected--that there would be zero electric buses by 2040. China is already operating 400,000. We are going to get run away from by China if we don't smarten up and compete. Here is more good news. The price of digging out and transporting and burning dirty fuels is high: nearly $110 for a megawatt hour of coal-fueled power. If you look, the most expensive are nuclear power plants; the next most expensive, coal; the next most expensive, solar thermal, which generates heat; the next most expensive, natural gas; and down here, the two cheapest by far are solar photovoltaic and wind. So we know where these markets are going, with just $40 per megawatt hour for solar photovoltaic compared to $110 for coal. Over the last decade, the average cost of solar dropped from $200 per megawatt hour to less than a quarter of that. The cost of wind power is down, and offshore wind is emerging. Battery storage now competes on price with gas-fired, peak-demand plants in many areas. Even with the massive subsidy that we all have to pay to prop up fossil fuel, renewables are starting to win on price anyway. If the price of wind, solar, battery storage, and other renewable technologies continues to drop, we could reach 100 percent renewable energy by the middle of the century, and we will need to if we are going to stay within the 1.5 degrees Celsius safe zone. In fact, here is what you see. The power sector's emissions are declining. There is a lot of work left to do in transportation--what you might call room for improvement there. There is a lot of room for improvement in industry and a lot of room for improvement in buildings and other. So there is work to be done here. Of course, these other sectors don't have much of an incentive to solve their emissions problem because it is still free to pollute. We continue to violate the most basic market theory about externalities, and we let these fossil fuel polluters pollute for free. When we let them pollute for free, it takes away any incentive in these other sectors to fix that problem--and, of course, that is goal 1 for the fossil-fuel industry. With a $650 billion-per-year subsidy, they are throwing everything they have politically at trying to protect that phony, non-market-based, unfair subsidy. And even with it, they are still losing. We could be doing better in all these sectors if we put a proper market-based price on carbon. So far they have won, if you can call not preparing for a looming calamity to be winning. Here is a quick summary of the lessons of the 2010s. One, the science is clear--we have blown by 400 parts per million. We are now in unchartered territory for the human species. Two, climate change is a massive threat to our economy, particularly with the danger of crashes coming soon in coastal property values and carbon assets. I just read the letter from BlackRock to CEOs and investors. BlackRock is one of the biggest investment companies in the world. They have warned of what they called capital reallocation. That means things are going to shift--happening as markets anticipate climate hazard--things like facing the danger of coastal property value crashes or carbon asset value crashes. Those crashes create capital reallocation. I love the way economists talk. All the agony behind that, and they call it capital reallocation. Wrecking the world economy, they call systemic risk. Three, Americans are getting that climate change is a big problem. It is a big change. It is a big change particularly with young Republicans, who totally get it. Here is my challenge to my Republican colleagues in the Senate: Sit down with your own young staffers. Sit down with the young staffers in your own office and hear them out about climate change. You will see that there is a big generational divide. Four, coal is on the ropes. Experts predict huge stranded assets in gas and oil. Solar and other renewables are booming as they outcompete fossil fuel on costs alone. That is a genie even the crooked fossil fuel machine can't put back in the bottle. Of course, the fossil fuel industry is still up to no good, with its vast array of phony front groups so it does not look like it is them. They have names like the George C. Marshall Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute--a bunch of phony front groups filled with stables of paid liars emitting slimy rivers of dark money, polluting our politics as badly as their emissions pollute our planet. That hasn't stopped, and they should be held accountable. The 2020s are going to be tough, for sure. Australia is seeing the opening episode. I have an analogy that I will use as I close. I have spent time running rivers. I like running rivers. I like running rivers in inflatables. I like running rivers in kayaks. I have run rivers from the placid Rappahannock in Virginia to the mighty Colorado through our massive Grand Canyon and lots in between. One of the things about running a river that has big rapids is that the first thing you do is you look at the map and you learn where the big rapids are so you can stop, get safely to shore, and figure out whether you can navigate the rapids or whether you need to portage around them. Well, we had a map for where the rapids are on this. The scientists showed us. They told us. They warned us. But we ignored them. But not paying attention to what you are told on the science map is not your last chance. Going down the river, when you get closer, you can actually start to hear the falls, the rapids roaring up ahead of you. The wildfires, the flooding, the rising seas, the species relocating around the planet--if that is not a roaring for us to hear now from the planet about the dangers ahead, shame on us. It is enough for us to know that we are actually getting close to big trouble, and we still do nothing. Then there is a point on the river where it is your last chance. You have no choice as to whether you are going to miss the rapids or the falls ahead. You have ignored all the warnings. You have ignored the map. You haven't listened to the roar, and now you are close. Now you will have to paddle very hard to avoid the roaring rapids ahead. Nature's forces are pulling you inexorably toward the cataract. You will have to paddle for your life to avoid it. That is where I believe we are right now. I believe that as human kind, as acountry, we have to paddle for our lives right now to avoid being sucked over the climate falls and into dangers that we don't want to see and that we don't want our children to have to see. Let's wake up here. Let's shake off the shackles of this crooked fossil fuel industry, and let's get paddling for our lives. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

2020-01-06

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS186

formal

based

white supremacist

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the community in Harlan County, KY, will gather next month in honor of a devoted caregiver and friend as he prepares to begin a well-deserved retirement. Today, I would like to join them in paying tribute to Dr. Samir Guindi for the 45 years of devotion he has given to Southeastern Kentucky. Dr. Guindi--Sam to his friends--and his wife, Laila, are originally from Egypt. They arrived in Harlan in 1975, where Sam spent much of his career as the only ear, nose, and throat surgical specialist in the area. As a result, his services were constantly in demand, and he dedicated himself wholeheartedly to the vital work. Conservative estimates by his colleagues show Sam conducted more than 200,000 patient visits during his impressive career. He performed approximately 30,000 procedures. Many of the patients Sam treated were children at high risk of ear damage and deafness. On top of his busy professional schedule, Sam partnered with the well-regarded Appalachian Regional Healthcare System to provide charitable care for families in need. He was based in Harlan, but Sam's work extended into nearby Bell, Letcher, and Perry Counties as well. He spent countless hours on the road to see scores of patients in a single day, often without any compensation. In a region that has long faced a scarcity of medical professionals, Sam's tireless generosity and kindness made a remarkable impact on families in Southeastern Kentucky. Sam's life has been a wonderful example of selflessness. Both of his sons, Alfi and Sherif, are successful attorneys, and Sherif followed his father into the service of his community by working as a public defender and an assistant Commonwealth's attorney. It is my privilege to join the Guindi family, the Harlan community, and all of Sam's patients in thanking him for his decades of providing vital medical care in Appalachia. I wish Sam the very best as he enjoys a relaxing retirement. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in commending this outstanding Kentuckian.

2020-01-06

Mr. McCONNELL

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS189

formal

single

homophobic

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the community in Harlan County, KY, will gather next month in honor of a devoted caregiver and friend as he prepares to begin a well-deserved retirement. Today, I would like to join them in paying tribute to Dr. Samir Guindi for the 45 years of devotion he has given to Southeastern Kentucky. Dr. Guindi--Sam to his friends--and his wife, Laila, are originally from Egypt. They arrived in Harlan in 1975, where Sam spent much of his career as the only ear, nose, and throat surgical specialist in the area. As a result, his services were constantly in demand, and he dedicated himself wholeheartedly to the vital work. Conservative estimates by his colleagues show Sam conducted more than 200,000 patient visits during his impressive career. He performed approximately 30,000 procedures. Many of the patients Sam treated were children at high risk of ear damage and deafness. On top of his busy professional schedule, Sam partnered with the well-regarded Appalachian Regional Healthcare System to provide charitable care for families in need. He was based in Harlan, but Sam's work extended into nearby Bell, Letcher, and Perry Counties as well. He spent countless hours on the road to see scores of patients in a single day, often without any compensation. In a region that has long faced a scarcity of medical professionals, Sam's tireless generosity and kindness made a remarkable impact on families in Southeastern Kentucky. Sam's life has been a wonderful example of selflessness. Both of his sons, Alfi and Sherif, are successful attorneys, and Sherif followed his father into the service of his community by working as a public defender and an assistant Commonwealth's attorney. It is my privilege to join the Guindi family, the Harlan community, and all of Sam's patients in thanking him for his decades of providing vital medical care in Appalachia. I wish Sam the very best as he enjoys a relaxing retirement. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in commending this outstanding Kentuckian.

2020-01-06

Mr. McCONNELL

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS189

formal

right to work

anti-GMO

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I rise today to commend Julius ``Julie'' P. Knapp for his service to our Nation during the past 45 years. Mr. Knapp retires this month from his position as the FCC's Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology, OET, where he helped usher in the modern age of communications and was instrumental in making spectrum available to fuel our Nation's economic growth in this area. If you are accessing a mobile device right now, using Wi-Fi, or buying the latest wireless gadget, you are likely benefiting from Julie Knapp's work. Mr. Knapp is well known and respected here in Congress for his technically precise and straightforward testimony at countless hearings. Mr. Knapp is a world-recognized expert in communications and is widely viewed as a leader on technical policy issues because of his expertise, his pragmatic and fair approach, and his ability to ``translate'' complex engineering issues to policymakers on all sides of an issue. He has briefed generations of congressional staffers on the intricacies of spectrum management and provided significant and substantial input on spectrum legislation. Many Members of this body have discussed communications industry developments with Julie, including low power FM, wireless and satellite issues, 4G LTE, Wi-Fi, and 5G, among others. When the public looks at Julie Knapp's career, we can see a parallel to the timeline of America's communications industry's growth. He graduated from high school in New Hyde, NY, in 1969, and he received his engineering degree from the City College of New York in 1974. Less than a month later, he went right to work for the American people. He rose through the ranks at the FCC, beginning as a 22-year-old certifying radio frequency devices and growing into a seasoned professional in the increasingly important equipment authorization branch. He became Chief of the FCC laboratory, Chief of the Policy and Rules Division for OET, and finally Chief of OET, where he has served with extraordinary distinction since 2006. Mr. Knapp's outstanding work has brought him numerous awards and accolades within the government and in the engineering community. In 2012, he received one of the highest honors for a civil servant, the Presidential Distinguished Rank Award. He also has received the FCC's Gold and Silver Awards and the Eugene C. Bowler Award for exceptional professionalism and dedication to public service. Mr. Knapp has served the United States through multiple administrations, never asking for more than the opportunity to make a difference--and along the way, making a lasting, positive impact. He epitomizes the concept of civil service. We all owe Julie Knapp a debt of gratitude and our sincerest thanks for dedicating his life to building America's communications systems and making these services universally available to all of us and for doing so with grace and humility.

2020-01-06

Mr. WICKER

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS190-2

formal

Federal Reserve

antisemitic

The following bills and joint resolution were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: H.R. 2398. An act to amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 and title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility for the HUD-VASH program, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit annual reports to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives regarding homeless veterans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. H.R. 4302. An act to authorize public housing agencies to share certain data regarding homeless individuals and families for the provision of housing and services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. H.R. 4335. An act to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue rules that prohibit officers and directors of certain companies from trading securities in anticipation of a current report, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. H.R. 4458. An act to require the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to issue reports on cybersecurity with respect to the functions of the Federal Reserve System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. H.R. 4841. An act to require the prudential banking regulators to provide annual testimony to Congress on their supervision and regulation activities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. H.R. 5315. An act to amend the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 to establish a Financial Agent Mentor-Protege Program within the Department of the Treasury, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. H.J. Res. 80. Joint resolution approving the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for a waiver under section 1703E(f) of title 38, United States Code; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS191-2

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

The following bills and joint resolution were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: H.R. 2398. An act to amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 and title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility for the HUD-VASH program, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit annual reports to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives regarding homeless veterans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. H.R. 4302. An act to authorize public housing agencies to share certain data regarding homeless individuals and families for the provision of housing and services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. H.R. 4335. An act to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue rules that prohibit officers and directors of certain companies from trading securities in anticipation of a current report, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. H.R. 4458. An act to require the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to issue reports on cybersecurity with respect to the functions of the Federal Reserve System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. H.R. 4841. An act to require the prudential banking regulators to provide annual testimony to Congress on their supervision and regulation activities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. H.R. 5315. An act to amend the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 to establish a Financial Agent Mentor-Protege Program within the Department of the Treasury, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. H.J. Res. 80. Joint resolution approving the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for a waiver under section 1703E(f) of title 38, United States Code; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS191-2

formal

Federal Reserve

antisemitic

The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-3713. A communication from the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Office of the Chief Management Officer, Department of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to Section 921 (b) (3) of the John McCain Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-3714. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of the Army (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 January 8, 2020; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-3715. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology), transmitting, pursuant to law, an annual report relative to the Department's Chemical Demilitarization Program (CDP); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-3716. A communication from the Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Regulations and Procedures Under the Plant Variety Protection Act'' ((RIN0581-AD86) (Docket No. AMS-ST-19-0004)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-3717. A communication from the Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Marketing Order Regulating the Handling of Apricots Grown in Designated Counties in Washington; Increased Assessment Rate'' (Docket No. AMS-DC-19-0048) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-3718. A communication from the Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Beef Promotion and Research Rules and Regulations'' (Docket No. AMS-LP-19-0054) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-3719. 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: Capital Simplification for Qualifying Community Banking Organizations; Technical Correction'' (RIN1557-AE59) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 9, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-3720. A communication from the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on the remaining obstacles to the efficient and timely circulation of $1 coins; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-3721. A communication from the Departmental Privacy Officer, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Privacy Act Regulations; Exemptions for the Investigations Case Management System'' (RIN1014-AA41) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-3722. A communication from the Director of Congressional Affairs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Surface Deformation'' ((NUREG-0800, Chapter 2) (SRP 2.5.3)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3723. 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; California; Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District; Reasonably Available Control Technology'' (FRL No. 10003-96-Region 9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3724. 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; Georgia; Nonattainment New Source Review'' (FRL No. 10004-19-Region 4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3725. 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; Illinois; Emissions Statement Rule Certification for the 2015 Ozone Standard'' (FRL No. 10004-21-Region 5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3726. 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; Missouri; Sampling Methods for Air Pollution Sources'' (FRL No. 10004-15-Region 7) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3727. 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; New Mexico; City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County; New Source Review (NSR) Preconstruction Permitting Program'' (FRL No. 10003-44-Region 6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3728. 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; Washington; Update to the Adoption by Reference, Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council'' (FRL No. 10003-85-Region 10) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3729. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Montana; State Implementation Plan Revisions for Open Burning'' (FRL No. 10003-37-Region 8) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3730. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; New Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico; Control of Emissions From Existing Other Solid Waste Incineration Units'' (FRL No. 10003-60-Region 6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3731. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``California; Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions'' (FRL No. 10003-98-Region 9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3732. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Extreme Area Submission Requirements, Coachella Valley Nonattainment Area; California Ozone'' (FRL No. 10003- 97-Region 9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3733. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fenhexamid; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 10002- 21-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committees on Environment and Public Works; and Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-3734. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil Residual Risk and Technology Review'' (FRL No. 10003-81-OAR) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3735. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Renewable Fuel Standard Program; Standards for 2020, Biomass-Based Diesel Volumes for 2021, and Other Changes'' (FRL No. 10003-79-OAR) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3736. A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Revenue Procedure 2020-5'' (Rev. Proc. 2020-5) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Finance. EC-3737. A communication from the Acting Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services, Office of General Counsel, Department of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation'' ((RIN1801-AA20) (34 CFR Parts 36 and 668)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 9, 2020; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-3738. A communication from the Senior Advisor, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of a vacancy in the position of Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of Health and Human Services, received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-3739. A communication from the Director of Regulations and Policy Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Medical Device Submissions: Amending Premarket Regulations That Require Multiple Copies and Specify Paper Copies To Be Required in Electronic Format'' (RIN0910-AH48) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 14, 2020; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-3740. A communication from the Director of Regulations and Policy Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Regulation Requiring an Approved New Drug Application for Drugs Sterilized by Irradiation'' (RIN0910-AH47) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-3741. A communication from the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``2017 Annual Report of the National Institute of Justice''; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-3742. 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 the Class E Airspace; Redding, CA'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0625)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3743. 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 the Class E Airspace; Coudersport, PA; and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Galeton, PA'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0757)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3744. 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- 0603)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3745. 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- 0983)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3746. 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- 9072)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3747. 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-2019-0703)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3748. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0256)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3749. 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; Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.; Canadair Limited) Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0710)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3750. 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-2019-0709)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3751. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0993)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3752. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0499)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS191-4

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-3713. A communication from the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Office of the Chief Management Officer, Department of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to Section 921 (b) (3) of the John McCain Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-3714. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of the Army (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 January 8, 2020; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-3715. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology), transmitting, pursuant to law, an annual report relative to the Department's Chemical Demilitarization Program (CDP); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-3716. A communication from the Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Regulations and Procedures Under the Plant Variety Protection Act'' ((RIN0581-AD86) (Docket No. AMS-ST-19-0004)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-3717. A communication from the Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Marketing Order Regulating the Handling of Apricots Grown in Designated Counties in Washington; Increased Assessment Rate'' (Docket No. AMS-DC-19-0048) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-3718. A communication from the Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Beef Promotion and Research Rules and Regulations'' (Docket No. AMS-LP-19-0054) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-3719. 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: Capital Simplification for Qualifying Community Banking Organizations; Technical Correction'' (RIN1557-AE59) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 9, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-3720. A communication from the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on the remaining obstacles to the efficient and timely circulation of $1 coins; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-3721. A communication from the Departmental Privacy Officer, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Privacy Act Regulations; Exemptions for the Investigations Case Management System'' (RIN1014-AA41) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-3722. A communication from the Director of Congressional Affairs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Surface Deformation'' ((NUREG-0800, Chapter 2) (SRP 2.5.3)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3723. 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; California; Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District; Reasonably Available Control Technology'' (FRL No. 10003-96-Region 9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3724. 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; Georgia; Nonattainment New Source Review'' (FRL No. 10004-19-Region 4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3725. 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; Illinois; Emissions Statement Rule Certification for the 2015 Ozone Standard'' (FRL No. 10004-21-Region 5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3726. 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; Missouri; Sampling Methods for Air Pollution Sources'' (FRL No. 10004-15-Region 7) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3727. 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; New Mexico; City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County; New Source Review (NSR) Preconstruction Permitting Program'' (FRL No. 10003-44-Region 6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3728. 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; Washington; Update to the Adoption by Reference, Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council'' (FRL No. 10003-85-Region 10) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3729. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Montana; State Implementation Plan Revisions for Open Burning'' (FRL No. 10003-37-Region 8) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3730. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; New Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico; Control of Emissions From Existing Other Solid Waste Incineration Units'' (FRL No. 10003-60-Region 6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3731. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``California; Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions'' (FRL No. 10003-98-Region 9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3732. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Extreme Area Submission Requirements, Coachella Valley Nonattainment Area; California Ozone'' (FRL No. 10003- 97-Region 9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3733. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fenhexamid; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 10002- 21-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committees on Environment and Public Works; and Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-3734. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil Residual Risk and Technology Review'' (FRL No. 10003-81-OAR) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3735. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Renewable Fuel Standard Program; Standards for 2020, Biomass-Based Diesel Volumes for 2021, and Other Changes'' (FRL No. 10003-79-OAR) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3736. A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Revenue Procedure 2020-5'' (Rev. Proc. 2020-5) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Finance. EC-3737. A communication from the Acting Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services, Office of General Counsel, Department of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation'' ((RIN1801-AA20) (34 CFR Parts 36 and 668)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 9, 2020; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-3738. A communication from the Senior Advisor, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of a vacancy in the position of Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of Health and Human Services, received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-3739. A communication from the Director of Regulations and Policy Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Medical Device Submissions: Amending Premarket Regulations That Require Multiple Copies and Specify Paper Copies To Be Required in Electronic Format'' (RIN0910-AH48) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 14, 2020; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-3740. A communication from the Director of Regulations and Policy Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Regulation Requiring an Approved New Drug Application for Drugs Sterilized by Irradiation'' (RIN0910-AH47) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2020; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-3741. A communication from the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``2017 Annual Report of the National Institute of Justice''; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-3742. 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 the Class E Airspace; Redding, CA'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0625)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3743. 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 the Class E Airspace; Coudersport, PA; and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Galeton, PA'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0757)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3744. 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- 0603)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3745. 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- 0983)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3746. 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- 9072)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3747. 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-2019-0703)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3748. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0256)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3749. 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; Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.; Canadair Limited) Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0710)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3750. 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-2019-0709)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3751. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0993)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3752. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0499)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS191-4

formal

Federal Reserve

antisemitic

At 10:04 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bill, without amendment: S. 457. An act to require that $1 coins issued during 2019 honor President George H.W. Bush and to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to issue bullion coins during 2019 in honor of Barbara Bush. The message also announced that the House has passed the following bills and joint resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 2398. An act to amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 and title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility for the HUD-VASH program, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit annual reports to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives regarding homeless veterans, and for other purposes. H.R. 4302. An act to authorize public housing agencies to share certain data regarding homeless individuals and families for the provision of housing and services, and for other purposes. H.R. 4335. An act to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue rules that prohibit officers and directors of certain companies from trading securities in anticipation of a current report, and for other purposes. H.R. 4458. An act to require the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to issue reports on cybersecurity with respect to the functions of the Federal Reserve System, and for other purposes. H.R. 4841. An act to require the prudential banking regulators to provide annual testimony to Congress on their supervision and regulation activities, and for other purposes. H.R. 5315. An act to amend the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 to establish a Financial Agent Mentor-Protege Program with the Department of the Treasury, and for other purposes. H.J. Res. 80. Joint resolution approving the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for a waiver under section 1703E(f) of title 38, United States Code. Enrolled Bills Signed The President pro tempore (Mr. Grassley) announced that on today, January 14, 2020, he has signed the following enrolled bills, which were previously signed by the Speaker of the House: H.R. 583. An act to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for enhanced penalties for pirate radio, and for other purposes. H.R. 2476. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide funding to secure nonprofit facilities from terrorist attacks, and for other purposes.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS191

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

At 10:04 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bill, without amendment: S. 457. An act to require that $1 coins issued during 2019 honor President George H.W. Bush and to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to issue bullion coins during 2019 in honor of Barbara Bush. The message also announced that the House has passed the following bills and joint resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 2398. An act to amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 and title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility for the HUD-VASH program, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit annual reports to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives regarding homeless veterans, and for other purposes. H.R. 4302. An act to authorize public housing agencies to share certain data regarding homeless individuals and families for the provision of housing and services, and for other purposes. H.R. 4335. An act to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue rules that prohibit officers and directors of certain companies from trading securities in anticipation of a current report, and for other purposes. H.R. 4458. An act to require the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to issue reports on cybersecurity with respect to the functions of the Federal Reserve System, and for other purposes. H.R. 4841. An act to require the prudential banking regulators to provide annual testimony to Congress on their supervision and regulation activities, and for other purposes. H.R. 5315. An act to amend the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 to establish a Financial Agent Mentor-Protege Program with the Department of the Treasury, and for other purposes. H.J. Res. 80. Joint resolution approving the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for a waiver under section 1703E(f) of title 38, United States Code. Enrolled Bills Signed The President pro tempore (Mr. Grassley) announced that on today, January 14, 2020, he has signed the following enrolled bills, which were previously signed by the Speaker of the House: H.R. 583. An act to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for enhanced penalties for pirate radio, and for other purposes. H.R. 2476. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide funding to secure nonprofit facilities from terrorist attacks, and for other purposes.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS191

formal

terrorist

Islamophobic

At 10:04 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bill, without amendment: S. 457. An act to require that $1 coins issued during 2019 honor President George H.W. Bush and to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to issue bullion coins during 2019 in honor of Barbara Bush. The message also announced that the House has passed the following bills and joint resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 2398. An act to amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 and title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility for the HUD-VASH program, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit annual reports to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives regarding homeless veterans, and for other purposes. H.R. 4302. An act to authorize public housing agencies to share certain data regarding homeless individuals and families for the provision of housing and services, and for other purposes. H.R. 4335. An act to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue rules that prohibit officers and directors of certain companies from trading securities in anticipation of a current report, and for other purposes. H.R. 4458. An act to require the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to issue reports on cybersecurity with respect to the functions of the Federal Reserve System, and for other purposes. H.R. 4841. An act to require the prudential banking regulators to provide annual testimony to Congress on their supervision and regulation activities, and for other purposes. H.R. 5315. An act to amend the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 to establish a Financial Agent Mentor-Protege Program with the Department of the Treasury, and for other purposes. H.J. Res. 80. Joint resolution approving the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for a waiver under section 1703E(f) of title 38, United States Code. Enrolled Bills Signed The President pro tempore (Mr. Grassley) announced that on today, January 14, 2020, he has signed the following enrolled bills, which were previously signed by the Speaker of the House: H.R. 583. An act to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for enhanced penalties for pirate radio, and for other purposes. H.R. 2476. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide funding to secure nonprofit facilities from terrorist attacks, and for other purposes.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS191

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Coons, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Harris, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Ms. Rosen, and Mr. Van Hollen): S. 3190. A bill to authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

2020-01-06

The RECORDER

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS194

formal

terrorism

Islamophobic

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Coons, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Harris, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Ms. Rosen, and Mr. Van Hollen): S. 3190. A bill to authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

2020-01-06

The RECORDER

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS194

formal

terrorist

Islamophobic

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Coons, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Harris, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Ms. Rosen, and Mr. Van Hollen): S. 3190. A bill to authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

2020-01-06

The RECORDER

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS194

formal

terrorist

Islamophobic

SA 1279. Mr. CRUZ submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution S.J. Res. 63, to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations; as follows: In section 1, insert after paragraph (4) the following: (5) On January 2, 2020, United States personnel killed terrorist leader Qasem Soleimani during the course of a targeted strike against terrorists engaged in planning attacks against United States persons and personnel.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS197-3

formal

terrorists

Islamophobic

SA 1279. Mr. CRUZ submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution S.J. Res. 63, to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations; as follows: In section 1, insert after paragraph (4) the following: (5) On January 2, 2020, United States personnel killed terrorist leader Qasem Soleimani during the course of a targeted strike against terrorists engaged in planning attacks against United States persons and personnel.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-01-14-pt1-PgS197-3

formal

XX

transphobic

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, which the Chair will put de novo. The question is on the Speaker's approval of the Journal. Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

2020-01-06

The SPEAKER pro tempore

House

CREC-2020-01-15-pt1-PgH258

formal

terrorist

Islamophobic

Cheryl L. Johnson, Clerk of the House, reported that on January 14, 2020, she presented to the President of the United States, for his approval, the following bills: H.R. 2476. To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide funding to secure nonprofit facilities from terrorist attacks, and for other purposes. H.R. 583. To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for enhanced penalties for pirate radio, and for other purposes.

2020-01-06

Unknown

House

CREC-2020-01-15-pt1-PgH298-2

formal

based

white supremacist

Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: 3569. A letter from the Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the ``Annual Report to the Congress on the Presidential $1 Coin Program'', December 2019, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 5112(p)(3)(B); Public Law 97-258 (as amended by Public Law 109-145, Sec. 104); (119 Stat. 2670); to the Committee on Financial Services. 3570. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- California: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions [EPA-R09- RCRA-2019-0491; FRL-10003-98-Region 9] received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3571. A letter from the Director, Regulations Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Extreme Area Submission Requirements, Coachella Valley Nonattainment Area; California Ozone [EPA- R09-OAR-2019-0240; FRL-10003-97-Region 9] received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3572. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Fenhexamid; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA- HQ-OPP-2018-0560; FRL-10002-21] received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3573. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; New Mexico; City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County; New Source Review Preconstruction Permitting Program [EPA-R06-OAR-2018-0177; FRL-10003-44-Region 6] received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3574. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Washington; Update to the Adoption by Reference, Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council [EPA-R10-OAR-2019-0568; FRL-10003-85-Region 10] received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3575. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Montana; State Implementation Plan Revisions for Open Burning [EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0163; FRL- 10003-37-Region 8] received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3576. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's direct final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; New Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico; Control of Emissions From Existing Other Solid Waste Incineration Units [EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0513; FRL-10003-60- Region 6] received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3577. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; California; Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District; Reasonably Available Control Technology [EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0528; FRL- 10003-96-Region 9] received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3578. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; GA; Nonattainment New Source Review [EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0710; FRL-10004-19-Region 4] received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3579. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's direct final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Emissions Statement Rule Certification for the 2015 Ozone Standard [EPA-R05-OAR-2019-0311; FRL-10004-21-Region 5] received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3580. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Sampling Methods for Air Pollution Sources [EPA-R07-2019-0656; FRL- 10004-15-Region 1] received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3581. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Standards for 2020 and Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2021 and Other Changes [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0136; FRL-10003-79-OAR] (RIN: 2060-AU42) received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3582. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil Residual Risk and Technology Reviews [EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685; FRL- 10003-81-OAR] (RIN: 2060- AT51) received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3583. A letter from the Assistant Legal Adviser, Office of Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report concerning international agreements other than treaties entered into by the United States to be transmitted to the Congress within the sixty-day period specified in the Case- Zablocki Act, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(a); Public Law 92- 403, Sec. 1(a) (as amended by Public Law 108-458, Sec. 7121(b)); (118 Stat. 3807); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 3584. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting a detailed report justifying the reasons for the extension of locality-based comparability payments to non-General Schedule categories of positions that are in more than one executive agency, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5304(h)(2)(C); Public Law 89-554, Sec. 5304(h) (as added by Public Law 102-378, Sec. 2(26)(E)(ii)); (106 Stat. 1349); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. 3585. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting the Office's report titled ``Federal Student Loan Repayment Program'' for Calendar Year 2018, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5379(h)(2); Public Law 101-510, Sec. 1206(b)(1) (as added by Public Law 106-398, Sec. 1122(a)); (114 Stat. 1654A-316); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. 3586. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting Department's FY 2019 Agency Financial Report, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3515(a)(1); Public Law 101-576, Sec. 303(a)(1) (as amended by Public Law 107-289, Sec. 2(a)); (116 Stat. 2049); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. 3587. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting the Office's Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program Report for Fiscal Year 2017; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

2020-01-06

Unknown

House

CREC-2020-01-15-pt1-PgH298-4

formal

Federal Reserve

antisemitic

Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: 3569. A letter from the Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the ``Annual Report to the Congress on the Presidential $1 Coin Program'', December 2019, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 5112(p)(3)(B); Public Law 97-258 (as amended by Public Law 109-145, Sec. 104); (119 Stat. 2670); to the Committee on Financial Services. 3570. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- California: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions [EPA-R09- RCRA-2019-0491; FRL-10003-98-Region 9] received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3571. A letter from the Director, Regulations Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Extreme Area Submission Requirements, Coachella Valley Nonattainment Area; California Ozone [EPA- R09-OAR-2019-0240; FRL-10003-97-Region 9] received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3572. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Fenhexamid; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA- HQ-OPP-2018-0560; FRL-10002-21] received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3573. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; New Mexico; City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County; New Source Review Preconstruction Permitting Program [EPA-R06-OAR-2018-0177; FRL-10003-44-Region 6] received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3574. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Washington; Update to the Adoption by Reference, Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council [EPA-R10-OAR-2019-0568; FRL-10003-85-Region 10] received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3575. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Montana; State Implementation Plan Revisions for Open Burning [EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0163; FRL- 10003-37-Region 8] received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3576. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's direct final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; New Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico; Control of Emissions From Existing Other Solid Waste Incineration Units [EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0513; FRL-10003-60- Region 6] received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3577. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; California; Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District; Reasonably Available Control Technology [EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0528; FRL- 10003-96-Region 9] received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3578. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; GA; Nonattainment New Source Review [EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0710; FRL-10004-19-Region 4] received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3579. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's direct final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Emissions Statement Rule Certification for the 2015 Ozone Standard [EPA-R05-OAR-2019-0311; FRL-10004-21-Region 5] received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3580. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Sampling Methods for Air Pollution Sources [EPA-R07-2019-0656; FRL- 10004-15-Region 1] received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3581. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Standards for 2020 and Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2021 and Other Changes [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0136; FRL-10003-79-OAR] (RIN: 2060-AU42) received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3582. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil Residual Risk and Technology Reviews [EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685; FRL- 10003-81-OAR] (RIN: 2060- AT51) received January 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3583. A letter from the Assistant Legal Adviser, Office of Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report concerning international agreements other than treaties entered into by the United States to be transmitted to the Congress within the sixty-day period specified in the Case- Zablocki Act, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(a); Public Law 92- 403, Sec. 1(a) (as amended by Public Law 108-458, Sec. 7121(b)); (118 Stat. 3807); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 3584. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting a detailed report justifying the reasons for the extension of locality-based comparability payments to non-General Schedule categories of positions that are in more than one executive agency, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5304(h)(2)(C); Public Law 89-554, Sec. 5304(h) (as added by Public Law 102-378, Sec. 2(26)(E)(ii)); (106 Stat. 1349); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. 3585. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting the Office's report titled ``Federal Student Loan Repayment Program'' for Calendar Year 2018, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5379(h)(2); Public Law 101-510, Sec. 1206(b)(1) (as added by Public Law 106-398, Sec. 1122(a)); (114 Stat. 1654A-316); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. 3586. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting Department's FY 2019 Agency Financial Report, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3515(a)(1); Public Law 101-576, Sec. 303(a)(1) (as amended by Public Law 107-289, Sec. 2(a)); (116 Stat. 2049); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. 3587. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting the Office's Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program Report for Fiscal Year 2017; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

2020-01-06

Unknown

House

CREC-2020-01-15-pt1-PgH298-4

formal

terrorist

Islamophobic

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, when President Obama signed the Iran deal, we were led to believe that this rapprochement with the Iranian regime would induce Iran to moderate its aggressive foreign policy and that Iran would likely spend the money made available through that deal on economic development for the good of its people. Instead, under the direction of General Soleimani, Iran accelerated its effort at regional domination, funding terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon, pro-Iranian militias in Iraq, the Assad regime in Syria, and the Houthi rebels fomenting civil war in Yemen. Iran did all of that with money from the Iran agreement. Meanwhile, the suffering Iranian people staged widespread demonstrations against their government, which were met with a violent crackdown that killed hundreds. Years of appeasement didn't work, but it looks like President Trump's deterrence is having positive effect. I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. GRASSLEY

Senate

CREC-2020-01-15-pt1-PgS201-4

formal

single

homophobic

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on an entirely different matter, before the Senate shifts into the trial, we hope to complete an enormous accomplishment for this administration and, most importantly, for American families. It has now been more than 1 year--1 year--since President Trump hammered out the USMCA with the Governments of Mexico and Canada. These two neighbors buy more than $5 billion of American goods and services every single year. They buy nearly 30 percent of all the food and agricultural products we export to the entire world, and for 90 percent of our manufacturing sectors, Mexico or Canada rank as the No. 1 or No. 2 export destination. Over the past quarter of a century, 12 million U.S. jobs have come to depend on U.S. trade with Mexico and Canada. That includes many livelihoods in my home State of Kentucky, from agriculture to manufacturing, to aerospace and motor vehicles, to our signature industries, like distilled spirits. That is why workers, families, and small businesses in Kentucky and around the Nation have been clamoring to get this deal done for a year now. In addition to all the American livelihoods that this commerce already supports, experts predict the USMCA will create 176,000 new jobs as well. On behalf of all of these Americans, we were troubled to see Speaker Pelosi slow walk this agreement for the better part of a year. But, finally, late last year, the overwhelming bipartisan pressure to move forward made an impact on the House. So we are finally on the threshold of approving this agreement and sending it to President Trump's desk to become law. Our colleagues on the Finance Committee have already approved it by an overwhelming margin. Other committees of jurisdiction are wrapping up their consideration as we speak. Very soon, we hope the Senate will be able to vote on the floor and put this landmark accomplishment right on the President's desk. It will be a major win for Kentucky and for all 50 States, a major win for our country, a major win for the Trump administration, and a major win for those of us who are already ready to move past this season of toxic political noise and get back to doing even more of the American people's business.

2020-01-06

Mr. McCONNELL

Senate

CREC-2020-01-15-pt1-PgS202-2

formal

based

white supremacist

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before I make remarks on a different issue, I would like to address comments made this morning by the majority leader, the Senator from Kentucky. The first related, as most of his comments recently, to the pending impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate. I listened carefully to his arguments that the House and the Senate have moved too quickly on this matter. It is true that they moved with dispatch, and I think it reflects the fact that the charges that have been made were timely, important, and relevant to the election campaign cycle which we now face. The charges in the Articles of Impeachment suggest the President, in conversation with the President of Ukraine, asked for help in the campaign that is about to ensue, asking specifically for investigative material on the son of former Vice President Joseph Biden. At the same time, the President was withholding military assistance voted by the Appropriations Committee in Congress to Ukraine as they continue to battle with Russia. These are serious charges, and they were based on a telephone conversation last July. It is true that the effort by the House of Representatives has been timely and, by measurement of previous impeachment investigations, much faster, but I believe that the timeliness is one of the important elements here because we are facing this campaign. Secondly, there was an argument made by the majority leader that the Articles of Impeachment which we are about to receive in the Senate do not state that a crime was committed. I would refer the majority leader to the Constitution as well as to precedent in the U.S. Senate. The actual allegation of a crime is not required for an impeachment. I think the Senator from Kentucky knows that. The last point he makes is one that I think is very important, and that is that there has been some delay by Speaker Pelosi in sending the Articles of Impeachment to the U.S. Senate. I would say, during the course of the period since they were first voted on last December in the House and their arrival in the Senate this week, we have seen several things of importance unfold, not the least of which was a recent disclosure of new witnesses and new evidence that has have been collected since the House voted on the Articles of Impeachment. In the eyes of many, it is relevant evidence, and the fact that that information is now available to the Senate means we have a better chance of arriving at the truth after deliberation. Secondly, I might add it is encouraging that some Republican Members of the U.S. Senate have made it clear that they oppose the notion of a motion to dismiss the impeachment charges as soon as they arrive. That might have been the dream of some in the White House--and perhaps even some in the U.S. Senate--but cooler heads have prevailed, and I salute my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who believe we have a special responsibility to treat this constitutional assignment with independence and dignity. That means we don't prejudge by coming to the floor and announcing, in some critical terms, that the Articles of Impeachment should not be taken seriously. We should take them seriously. It is a serious matter. I hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle will do that.

2020-01-06

Mr. DURBIN

Senate

CREC-2020-01-15-pt1-PgS202-6

formal

based

white supremacist

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this week the House of Representatives will have the opportunity to stand up for student borrowers who have been defrauded by the schools they attended. The House of Representatives will be voting on a resolution introduced by Representative Susie Lee of Nevada which will allow defrauded student loan borrowers relief from their student debt. Under the Higher Education Act, currently the law of the land, when a student borrower is defrauded by their school, they are entitled to have their Federal student loans to attend that school discharged. That is what Congress intended. Why? The logic behind it is very straightforward. Consider the following: The Federal Government recognizes the accreditation of these schools, colleges, and universities. That accreditation authorizes these schools to offer loans from the Federal Government to pay for the cost of attending. It is a very straightforward process. The schools are accredited. The U.S. Government recognizes the accreditation which authorizes the school to offer courses to students, and then it goes on to say that students attending those colleges and universities will qualify for Federal student loans. Now, that is where this particular statement I am about to make becomes particularly relevant. The school makes promises about the education they are going to offer to the students to entice them to attend and to borrow money to attend. For example, the school may tell the students that the credits they earn at this school can be transferred to other schools, but sometimes that turns out to be untrue and false. These schools may tell the students there are jobs waiting for them in the fields that they want them to study at the schools. They tell them that, after graduation, there are plenty of employment opportunities, and oftentimes that turns out to be untrue. In fact, in the case of some of these schools, they have deliberately misrepresented the job placement of graduates to create the impression of success if you complete a course. The schools are lying to the students. The school may also promise that, if you complete a course at the school, you will automatically be qualified for certain certifications under State law. Sometimes that turns out to be a lie. They may also tell the students there are certain teachers and courses available to them if they pay their tuition, and that may turn out to be untrue as well. The law I referred to earlier is intended, when these types of lies and misrepresentations occur and the student is misled into borrowing Federal student loans based on these misrepresentations, to give the defrauded student the right to be relieved of the student loan responsibility under the law.It makes sense. If the student is lied to, takes out a Federal loan, and it turns out the school lied to them and defrauded them, we don't want the students saddled with a loan from that school that could literally change their lives. Now we have a new Secretary of Education under President Trump, Betsy DeVos. She has decided to rewrite the rules when it comes to these students receiving relief from the fraud I have just described. She places burdens on these students that we have not seen before. Basically, she is saying to the students: Lawyer up. You just can't make your plea to the Department of Education that you, along with a group of other students, were defrauded by representations in the materials they distributed or the statements they made--not good enough under the new rule written by Secretary DeVos. What she has basically said is that each one of these students now has an individual responsibility to prove that that student was defrauded, that there was a representation to that student as opposed to it being made by the school to all of the students or in its publications and the like. The burdens which Secretary DeVos now places on defrauded students have led to estimates that only 3 percent of the students who have been defrauded can possibly expect to receive relief from their student debt--3 percent. You might say: Well, these things happen. It is a ``buyer beware'' market. Students ought to know better. Really? When the Federal Government recognizes an accredited school and says to that school: You can offer Federal student loans, do we not bear some responsibility to the student and the family if that school lies and misrepresents facts to the students? Well, 78 percent of Americans happen to think, yes, we don't want to have students in a predicament where their own futures are going to be somehow compromised because of the fraud by the school. How many students are affected by this? A handful? No. It turns out, a dramatically large number. Over the last decade, tens of thousands of college students in America have been defrauded in ways I just described, lured into enrolling in classes with false promises and aggressive tactics, only to be left with massive student debt and a worthless education and no job. Sadly, it is a common occurrence in the for-profit college industry. That industry, the for-profit college industry, is an industry that can be best described by two numbers. Nine percent of postsecondary students are enrolled in for-profit colleges and universities in America. Think about the University of Phoenix, DeVry, and others. Nine percent of students end up in schools like that. Yet 33 percent of all the federal student loan defaults are students from these for-profit colleges and universities--9 percent of the students, 33 percent of the student loan defaults. Why? The tuition is too high; the education is virtually worthless; and there are no jobs at the end of the rainbow. Some of these schools--for-profit colleges like Corinthian, ITT Tech, Westwood, Dream Center--preyed on students, reaped huge profits, and then conveniently went bankrupt. They may be gone, legally gone, but the debts for the students still live. Others, such as Ashford, University of Phoenix, Career Education Corporation, are still out there doing business. Virtually, all of these notorious schools have been the subject of multiple State and local investigations or lawsuits for unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices. Unfortunately, they continue to create more student victims due to the lack of enforcement by our own U.S. Department of Education and loopholes in the laws, which, sadly, Congress has been unable or unwilling to close. Currently, there are more than 223,000 claims made by students of being defrauded and seeking relief under the Higher Education Act--over 200,000 student borrowers whose lives have been collared by student loan debt from these worthless, defrauding schools. The claims--223,000 of them--come from every State in the Union, big and small, red, blue, and purple. There are over 11,000 from my State of Illinois; over 19,000 from the State of Florida; 7,800 from Ohio; 6,100 from North Carolina; 3,800 from Colorado; 1,000 from the State of West Virginia; 385 in Maine; and more than 200 in Alaska. The American people believe these defrauded student borrowers and future defrauded borrowers deserve help. According to a poll by New America, 78 percent of Americans believe students should have their Federal student loans forgiven if their schools defrauded them. That includes 87 percent of Democrats and 71 percent of Republicans who feel that way. This new rule by Secretary DeVos would not allow borrowers to receive the Federal student loan discharge currently in the law. It is why more than 60 organizations are supporting the resolution, which the House will vote on this week, and the companion resolution I have introduced in the Senate. Among those supporting our effort are the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, the Student Veterans of America--and one that I want to highlight. I see there are others on the floor preparing to speak, so I am going to abbreviate my remarks, but I want to make one last point. Among the groups supporting our efforts to undo the borrower defense rule, promulgated by Secretary of Education DeVos, is the American Legion. The American Legion sent me a letter last month, and, in support of our effort to undo the DeVos rule, they said, among other things, that the rule is fundamentally unfair to veterans. Listen to what they say about the plight of veterans having been defrauded by schools, trying to get relief from their loans. This is from James ``Bill'' Oxford, national commander of the American Legion. He writes: Thousands of student veterans have been defrauded over the years--promised their credits would transfer when they wouldn't, given false or misleading job placement rates in marketing, promised one educational experience when they were recruited, but given something completely different. This type of deception against our veterans and servicemembers has been a lucrative scam for unscrupulous actors. As veterans are aggressively targeted due to their service to our country, they must be afforded the right to group relief. The Department of Education's ``Borrower Defense'' rule eliminates this right. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter dated December 18, 2019.

2020-01-06

Mr. DURBIN

Senate

CREC-2020-01-15-pt1-PgS203-2

formal

blue

antisemitic

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this week the House of Representatives will have the opportunity to stand up for student borrowers who have been defrauded by the schools they attended. The House of Representatives will be voting on a resolution introduced by Representative Susie Lee of Nevada which will allow defrauded student loan borrowers relief from their student debt. Under the Higher Education Act, currently the law of the land, when a student borrower is defrauded by their school, they are entitled to have their Federal student loans to attend that school discharged. That is what Congress intended. Why? The logic behind it is very straightforward. Consider the following: The Federal Government recognizes the accreditation of these schools, colleges, and universities. That accreditation authorizes these schools to offer loans from the Federal Government to pay for the cost of attending. It is a very straightforward process. The schools are accredited. The U.S. Government recognizes the accreditation which authorizes the school to offer courses to students, and then it goes on to say that students attending those colleges and universities will qualify for Federal student loans. Now, that is where this particular statement I am about to make becomes particularly relevant. The school makes promises about the education they are going to offer to the students to entice them to attend and to borrow money to attend. For example, the school may tell the students that the credits they earn at this school can be transferred to other schools, but sometimes that turns out to be untrue and false. These schools may tell the students there are jobs waiting for them in the fields that they want them to study at the schools. They tell them that, after graduation, there are plenty of employment opportunities, and oftentimes that turns out to be untrue. In fact, in the case of some of these schools, they have deliberately misrepresented the job placement of graduates to create the impression of success if you complete a course. The schools are lying to the students. The school may also promise that, if you complete a course at the school, you will automatically be qualified for certain certifications under State law. Sometimes that turns out to be a lie. They may also tell the students there are certain teachers and courses available to them if they pay their tuition, and that may turn out to be untrue as well. The law I referred to earlier is intended, when these types of lies and misrepresentations occur and the student is misled into borrowing Federal student loans based on these misrepresentations, to give the defrauded student the right to be relieved of the student loan responsibility under the law.It makes sense. If the student is lied to, takes out a Federal loan, and it turns out the school lied to them and defrauded them, we don't want the students saddled with a loan from that school that could literally change their lives. Now we have a new Secretary of Education under President Trump, Betsy DeVos. She has decided to rewrite the rules when it comes to these students receiving relief from the fraud I have just described. She places burdens on these students that we have not seen before. Basically, she is saying to the students: Lawyer up. You just can't make your plea to the Department of Education that you, along with a group of other students, were defrauded by representations in the materials they distributed or the statements they made--not good enough under the new rule written by Secretary DeVos. What she has basically said is that each one of these students now has an individual responsibility to prove that that student was defrauded, that there was a representation to that student as opposed to it being made by the school to all of the students or in its publications and the like. The burdens which Secretary DeVos now places on defrauded students have led to estimates that only 3 percent of the students who have been defrauded can possibly expect to receive relief from their student debt--3 percent. You might say: Well, these things happen. It is a ``buyer beware'' market. Students ought to know better. Really? When the Federal Government recognizes an accredited school and says to that school: You can offer Federal student loans, do we not bear some responsibility to the student and the family if that school lies and misrepresents facts to the students? Well, 78 percent of Americans happen to think, yes, we don't want to have students in a predicament where their own futures are going to be somehow compromised because of the fraud by the school. How many students are affected by this? A handful? No. It turns out, a dramatically large number. Over the last decade, tens of thousands of college students in America have been defrauded in ways I just described, lured into enrolling in classes with false promises and aggressive tactics, only to be left with massive student debt and a worthless education and no job. Sadly, it is a common occurrence in the for-profit college industry. That industry, the for-profit college industry, is an industry that can be best described by two numbers. Nine percent of postsecondary students are enrolled in for-profit colleges and universities in America. Think about the University of Phoenix, DeVry, and others. Nine percent of students end up in schools like that. Yet 33 percent of all the federal student loan defaults are students from these for-profit colleges and universities--9 percent of the students, 33 percent of the student loan defaults. Why? The tuition is too high; the education is virtually worthless; and there are no jobs at the end of the rainbow. Some of these schools--for-profit colleges like Corinthian, ITT Tech, Westwood, Dream Center--preyed on students, reaped huge profits, and then conveniently went bankrupt. They may be gone, legally gone, but the debts for the students still live. Others, such as Ashford, University of Phoenix, Career Education Corporation, are still out there doing business. Virtually, all of these notorious schools have been the subject of multiple State and local investigations or lawsuits for unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices. Unfortunately, they continue to create more student victims due to the lack of enforcement by our own U.S. Department of Education and loopholes in the laws, which, sadly, Congress has been unable or unwilling to close. Currently, there are more than 223,000 claims made by students of being defrauded and seeking relief under the Higher Education Act--over 200,000 student borrowers whose lives have been collared by student loan debt from these worthless, defrauding schools. The claims--223,000 of them--come from every State in the Union, big and small, red, blue, and purple. There are over 11,000 from my State of Illinois; over 19,000 from the State of Florida; 7,800 from Ohio; 6,100 from North Carolina; 3,800 from Colorado; 1,000 from the State of West Virginia; 385 in Maine; and more than 200 in Alaska. The American people believe these defrauded student borrowers and future defrauded borrowers deserve help. According to a poll by New America, 78 percent of Americans believe students should have their Federal student loans forgiven if their schools defrauded them. That includes 87 percent of Democrats and 71 percent of Republicans who feel that way. This new rule by Secretary DeVos would not allow borrowers to receive the Federal student loan discharge currently in the law. It is why more than 60 organizations are supporting the resolution, which the House will vote on this week, and the companion resolution I have introduced in the Senate. Among those supporting our effort are the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, the Student Veterans of America--and one that I want to highlight. I see there are others on the floor preparing to speak, so I am going to abbreviate my remarks, but I want to make one last point. Among the groups supporting our efforts to undo the borrower defense rule, promulgated by Secretary of Education DeVos, is the American Legion. The American Legion sent me a letter last month, and, in support of our effort to undo the DeVos rule, they said, among other things, that the rule is fundamentally unfair to veterans. Listen to what they say about the plight of veterans having been defrauded by schools, trying to get relief from their loans. This is from James ``Bill'' Oxford, national commander of the American Legion. He writes: Thousands of student veterans have been defrauded over the years--promised their credits would transfer when they wouldn't, given false or misleading job placement rates in marketing, promised one educational experience when they were recruited, but given something completely different. This type of deception against our veterans and servicemembers has been a lucrative scam for unscrupulous actors. As veterans are aggressively targeted due to their service to our country, they must be afforded the right to group relief. The Department of Education's ``Borrower Defense'' rule eliminates this right. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter dated December 18, 2019.

2020-01-06

Mr. DURBIN

Senate

CREC-2020-01-15-pt1-PgS203-2

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this week the House of Representatives will have the opportunity to stand up for student borrowers who have been defrauded by the schools they attended. The House of Representatives will be voting on a resolution introduced by Representative Susie Lee of Nevada which will allow defrauded student loan borrowers relief from their student debt. Under the Higher Education Act, currently the law of the land, when a student borrower is defrauded by their school, they are entitled to have their Federal student loans to attend that school discharged. That is what Congress intended. Why? The logic behind it is very straightforward. Consider the following: The Federal Government recognizes the accreditation of these schools, colleges, and universities. That accreditation authorizes these schools to offer loans from the Federal Government to pay for the cost of attending. It is a very straightforward process. The schools are accredited. The U.S. Government recognizes the accreditation which authorizes the school to offer courses to students, and then it goes on to say that students attending those colleges and universities will qualify for Federal student loans. Now, that is where this particular statement I am about to make becomes particularly relevant. The school makes promises about the education they are going to offer to the students to entice them to attend and to borrow money to attend. For example, the school may tell the students that the credits they earn at this school can be transferred to other schools, but sometimes that turns out to be untrue and false. These schools may tell the students there are jobs waiting for them in the fields that they want them to study at the schools. They tell them that, after graduation, there are plenty of employment opportunities, and oftentimes that turns out to be untrue. In fact, in the case of some of these schools, they have deliberately misrepresented the job placement of graduates to create the impression of success if you complete a course. The schools are lying to the students. The school may also promise that, if you complete a course at the school, you will automatically be qualified for certain certifications under State law. Sometimes that turns out to be a lie. They may also tell the students there are certain teachers and courses available to them if they pay their tuition, and that may turn out to be untrue as well. The law I referred to earlier is intended, when these types of lies and misrepresentations occur and the student is misled into borrowing Federal student loans based on these misrepresentations, to give the defrauded student the right to be relieved of the student loan responsibility under the law.It makes sense. If the student is lied to, takes out a Federal loan, and it turns out the school lied to them and defrauded them, we don't want the students saddled with a loan from that school that could literally change their lives. Now we have a new Secretary of Education under President Trump, Betsy DeVos. She has decided to rewrite the rules when it comes to these students receiving relief from the fraud I have just described. She places burdens on these students that we have not seen before. Basically, she is saying to the students: Lawyer up. You just can't make your plea to the Department of Education that you, along with a group of other students, were defrauded by representations in the materials they distributed or the statements they made--not good enough under the new rule written by Secretary DeVos. What she has basically said is that each one of these students now has an individual responsibility to prove that that student was defrauded, that there was a representation to that student as opposed to it being made by the school to all of the students or in its publications and the like. The burdens which Secretary DeVos now places on defrauded students have led to estimates that only 3 percent of the students who have been defrauded can possibly expect to receive relief from their student debt--3 percent. You might say: Well, these things happen. It is a ``buyer beware'' market. Students ought to know better. Really? When the Federal Government recognizes an accredited school and says to that school: You can offer Federal student loans, do we not bear some responsibility to the student and the family if that school lies and misrepresents facts to the students? Well, 78 percent of Americans happen to think, yes, we don't want to have students in a predicament where their own futures are going to be somehow compromised because of the fraud by the school. How many students are affected by this? A handful? No. It turns out, a dramatically large number. Over the last decade, tens of thousands of college students in America have been defrauded in ways I just described, lured into enrolling in classes with false promises and aggressive tactics, only to be left with massive student debt and a worthless education and no job. Sadly, it is a common occurrence in the for-profit college industry. That industry, the for-profit college industry, is an industry that can be best described by two numbers. Nine percent of postsecondary students are enrolled in for-profit colleges and universities in America. Think about the University of Phoenix, DeVry, and others. Nine percent of students end up in schools like that. Yet 33 percent of all the federal student loan defaults are students from these for-profit colleges and universities--9 percent of the students, 33 percent of the student loan defaults. Why? The tuition is too high; the education is virtually worthless; and there are no jobs at the end of the rainbow. Some of these schools--for-profit colleges like Corinthian, ITT Tech, Westwood, Dream Center--preyed on students, reaped huge profits, and then conveniently went bankrupt. They may be gone, legally gone, but the debts for the students still live. Others, such as Ashford, University of Phoenix, Career Education Corporation, are still out there doing business. Virtually, all of these notorious schools have been the subject of multiple State and local investigations or lawsuits for unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices. Unfortunately, they continue to create more student victims due to the lack of enforcement by our own U.S. Department of Education and loopholes in the laws, which, sadly, Congress has been unable or unwilling to close. Currently, there are more than 223,000 claims made by students of being defrauded and seeking relief under the Higher Education Act--over 200,000 student borrowers whose lives have been collared by student loan debt from these worthless, defrauding schools. The claims--223,000 of them--come from every State in the Union, big and small, red, blue, and purple. There are over 11,000 from my State of Illinois; over 19,000 from the State of Florida; 7,800 from Ohio; 6,100 from North Carolina; 3,800 from Colorado; 1,000 from the State of West Virginia; 385 in Maine; and more than 200 in Alaska. The American people believe these defrauded student borrowers and future defrauded borrowers deserve help. According to a poll by New America, 78 percent of Americans believe students should have their Federal student loans forgiven if their schools defrauded them. That includes 87 percent of Democrats and 71 percent of Republicans who feel that way. This new rule by Secretary DeVos would not allow borrowers to receive the Federal student loan discharge currently in the law. It is why more than 60 organizations are supporting the resolution, which the House will vote on this week, and the companion resolution I have introduced in the Senate. Among those supporting our effort are the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, the Student Veterans of America--and one that I want to highlight. I see there are others on the floor preparing to speak, so I am going to abbreviate my remarks, but I want to make one last point. Among the groups supporting our efforts to undo the borrower defense rule, promulgated by Secretary of Education DeVos, is the American Legion. The American Legion sent me a letter last month, and, in support of our effort to undo the DeVos rule, they said, among other things, that the rule is fundamentally unfair to veterans. Listen to what they say about the plight of veterans having been defrauded by schools, trying to get relief from their loans. This is from James ``Bill'' Oxford, national commander of the American Legion. He writes: Thousands of student veterans have been defrauded over the years--promised their credits would transfer when they wouldn't, given false or misleading job placement rates in marketing, promised one educational experience when they were recruited, but given something completely different. This type of deception against our veterans and servicemembers has been a lucrative scam for unscrupulous actors. As veterans are aggressively targeted due to their service to our country, they must be afforded the right to group relief. The Department of Education's ``Borrower Defense'' rule eliminates this right. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter dated December 18, 2019.

2020-01-06

Mr. DURBIN

Senate

CREC-2020-01-15-pt1-PgS203-2

formal

single

homophobic

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today is a momentous, historic, and solemn day in the history of the U.S. Senate and in the history of our Republic. The House of Representatives will send Articles of Impeachment against President Trump to the Senate, and the Speaker will appoint the House managers of the impeachment case. Two articles will be delivered. The first charges the President with abuse of power--of coercing a foreign leader into interfering in our elections and of using the powers of the Presidency, the most powerful public office in the Nation, to benefit himself. The second charges the President with obstruction of Congress for an unprecedented blockade of the legislature's authority to oversee and investigate the executive branch. Let's put it a different way. The House of Representatives has accused the President of trying to shake down a foreign leader for personal gain to help him in his campaign, and he has done everything possible to cover it up. This administration is unprecedented in its not being open, in its desire for secrecy, in its desire to prevent the public from knowing what it is doing, and it is worst of all when it comes in an impeachment trial. The two offenses are the types of offenses the Founders had in mind when they designed the impeachment powers of Congress. Americans and the Founding Fathers, in particular, from the very founding day of the Republic, have feared the ability of a foreign power to interfere in our elections. Americans have never wanted a foreign power to have sway over our elections, but that is what President Trump is accused of doing--of soliciting--in these articles. I would ask my colleagues, and I would ask the American people: Do we want a foreign power determining who our President is or do we want the American voters to determine it? It is that serious. That is the central question: Who should determine who our President and our other elected officials are? From the early days of the Republic, foreigners have tried to interfere, and from the early days of the Republic, we have resisted. Yet, according to these articles and other things he has done, President Trump seems to aid and abet it. His view is, if it is good for him, then, that is good enough. That is not America. We are a nation of laws--of the rule of law, not of the rule of one man. So now the Senate's job is to try the case--to conduct a fair trial on these very severe charges of letting, aiding, abetting, and encouraging a foreign power to interfere in our elections and of threatening them with the cutoff of aid--and to determine if the President's offenses merit, if they are proven, the most severe punishment our Constitution imagines. The House has made a very strong case, but, clearly, the Senators have to see that case and watch it firsthand. A fair trial means the prosecutors who make the case and the President's counsel who provide the defense have all of the evidence available. It means that Senators have all of the facts to make an informed decision. That means relevant witnesses, and that means relevant documents. We all know that. We all know--every Member of this body, Democrat or Republican--that you can't have a fair, open trial, particularly on something as weighty as impeachment, when we don't have the evidence and the facts. The precedents of the Senate are clear. Leader McConnell is constantly citing precedent. Here is one: The Senate has always heard from witnesses in impeachment trials. There have been 15 completed impeachment trials in the history of this country. In every single one of them, the Senate has heard from witnesses. Let me repeat that for Leader McConnell's benefit since he is always citing the precedent of 1999. There have been 15 completed impeachment trials, including the one in 1999. In the history of this country, in every single one of them, the Senate has heard from witnesses. It would be unprecedented not to. President Johnson's impeachment trial had witnesses--41 of them. President Clinton'strial had witnesses. Several of my colleagues, including the Republican leader, voted for them. Conducting an impeachment trial of the President of the United States and having no witnesses would be without precedent and, frankly, a new low for the majority in this body that history will not look kindly on. Each day that goes by, the case for witnesses and documents gains force and gains momentum. Last night, a new cache of documents, including dozens of pages of notes, text messages, and other records, shed light on the activities of the President's associates in Ukraine. The documents paint a sordid picture of the efforts by the President's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and his associate, Lev Parnas, to remove a sitting U.S. Ambassador and to pressure Ukraine President Zelensky to announce an investigation of one of the President's political rivals. Part of the plot to remove Ambassador Yovanovitch involved hiring a cheap Republican operative to follow her around and monitor her movements. How low can they go? Just when you think that President Trump and his network couldn't possibly get any more into the muck, reports suggest they are even dirtier than you could imagine. I saw a novelist on TV this morning. He said: If I had brought this plot to my publisher, he would have rejected it. He would have said it was absurd, that it could never happen, and that people will not believe it. Well, here it is, led by President Trump, who, again, cares not for the morals, ethics, and honor of this country as much as he cares about himself. To allegedly have some cut-rate political operative stalk an American Ambassador at the direction of the President's lawyer, potentially with the President's ``knowledge and consent''--that is what one of the emails read--I mean, how much more can America take in the decline of our morals, our values, and our standing in the world? I don't care who you are--Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative. Doesn't this kind of thing bother you if anyone does it, let alone the President of the United States? I don't know how any Member of this body could pick up the newspaper this morning, read this new revelation, and not conclude that the Senate needs access to relevant documents like these in the trial of President Trump. The release of this new information dramatically underscores the need for witnesses and for documents. The Republican leader has, so far, opposed Democratic requests to call for factfinding witnesses and to subpoena three specific sets of relevant documents. Despite their having no argument against them, the Republicans' position at the moment is to punt the question of witnesses and documents until after both sides finish their presentations. Then, they say they will consider documents and witnesses with an open mind. The Democrats have requested four fact witnesses. They are the President's top advisers, like Mr. Mulvaney. They are not the Democrats' men. They are the President's men. They are not Democratic witnesses. They are not our witnesses. They are just witnesses, plain and simple. Each of them has firsthand information about the charges against the President. So, as the House prepares to send the articles to the Senate today, it is time for us--all of us--to turn to the serious job of conducting a fair trial, one that the American people will accept as fair, not as a coverup and not as something that has hidden the evidence. The focus of Senators on both sides must fall on the question of witnesses and documents.

2020-01-06

Mr. SCHUMER

Senate

CREC-2020-01-15-pt1-PgS206-2

formal

quotas

racist

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, it appears that we are likely to be considering some version of the USMCA, implementing legislation this week, so I want to address this agreement, but in order to do that, I think we have to start with the underlying NAFTA agreement, which has been in place for some years, and ask a question, which is, Why did we go down the path of renegotiating NAFTA in the first place? Let's start there. As I can imagine, one reason that one might want to renegotiate a trade agreement is if the trade agreement in question were not a reciprocal agreement. If it treated one party differently than it treated the other parties, then you might question whether that is a fair arrangement and might decide that if it is not, it needs to be revisited. That certainly would not describe NAFTA. NAFTA is entirely reciprocal. Another reason one might decide to renegotiate a trade agreement is if there were tariffs--meaning it wasn't really a free-trade agreement; it was an agreement that maybe changed the terms of trade. But if you still had tariffs, you might decide, as a free-trader like me, that it would be a good idea to renegotiate so that we can eliminate the remaining tariffs. Well, that certainly isn't the motivation, either, because with NAFTA, there are zero tariffs on 100 percent of manufactured goods that cross the borders of any of the three countries that are parties and zero tariffs on 97.5 percent of agricultural goods. So really there is not much more to do on the tariff side. By the way, that is true about any other kinds of restrictions on trade. There are no quotas, no obstacles. This is a free-trade agreement. That is what it is. It is fair, it is free, and it is reciprocal among the three countries. As a matter of fact, since NAFTA was adopted, U.S. exports to Mexico, for instance, have increased 500 percent. That is true of Pennsylvania exports to Mexico, as it is on average for all 50 States. I will state that modernizing the agreement always made sense, right? We now have this huge digital economy that did not exist back in the early nineties when NAFTA was adopted, so it definitely makes sense--it always makes sense to modernize, to update. But I think it is very clear that modernizing and updating were not the driving motivations for renegotiating NAFTA and adopting USMCA. The fundamental reason was that we have a trade deficit with Mexico. It is pretty persistent every year. It is not a huge deficit, but we have a trade deficit with Mexico, and that was deemed to be unacceptable to the administration. So the fundamental purpose of renegotiating NAFTA and the reason Mexico and Canada had to be coerced into this new agreement was so that we could diminish exports from Mexico. Despite the fact that economists universally understand that a trade deficit with a country like Mexico is a meaningless measure, nevertheless, that is the goal. Since trade in cars and car parts is the source of the trade deficit with Mexico, it is the auto sector that bears the brunt of the restrictions. Let me suggest that one useful way to think about USMCA is that it is NAFTA with two categories of changes. The first category is the modest constructive modernizations I alluded to. They are mostly taken from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement that had been negotiated by a previous administration. Examples include requiring that there be free digital trade. So you can't impose a tax on a data transfer, for instance, or you can't impose a tariff on software, and you can't require that data be stored locally. These are good things. It is important to note they are codifying existing practices. Canada, Mexico, and the United States do not currently impose obstacles and tariffs on this kind of economic activity. Under USMCA, they won't be able to; it will be codified. So we will make permanent that which is already the practice. There is a very, very tiny reduction in Canadian protectionism with respect to dairy products. For the most part, these modernizing features are modest, they come from TPP, but most importantly, they could have been achieved without the second category of changes I am about to describe. They could have been achieved because they weren't really controversial. The other important category of changes to NAFTA that USMCA contains is a full series of protectionist measures that are designed to diminish trade and/or investment. So for the first time in certainly modern times, we are going to consider a trade agreement that is designed to diminish trade, which should be very disturbing for those of us who understand howmuch economic growth comes from trade. What are some of the specifics? Well, the specific changes that are meant to diminish trade--as I said, the auto sector bears the brunt of it. It really is the end of free trade in automobiles and auto parts with respect to Mexico. The agreement imposes minimum wage requirements that are designed to be impossible for Mexican factories to meet, and when they don't meet them, Mexican autos and auto parts will be subject to a tax. So Americans who buy these cars will have to pay a tax on them. This is designed to make Mexico and Mexican factories less productive. We have folks who think that is somehow a good thing for the United States. It is not. This minimum wage requirement and the tariffs that will follow from it will simply make the entire North American auto industry less competitive because we have integrated supply chains, and American domestic manufacturers use parts that originate in Mexico. Those parts will now be more expensive. It will mean higher prices for American consumers, who will have to pay more money for a car and therefore will have less money available for any of the other things they would like to consume. It will probably lead to an increase or acceleration in the shift to automation because when you artificially establish an arbitrary wage rate that is unaffordable, it creates an incentive to avoid labor costs entirely with automation. All of that means fewer jobs. We are already seeing a reduction. We have a terrific economy generally, but the manufacturing sector is actually not participating in this tremendous expansion. We have been losing jobs in manufacturing as a result of tariffs we have been imposing. With the full anticipation of this agreement coming, the auto sector in the United States of America has been shedding jobs. We have been losing jobs as employers in this sector see where we are heading on this policy. That is one item. Another way we are restricting trade is by arbitrarily putting an expiration date on this trade agreement. It expires 16 years from the date of enactment. There is a mechanism by which, if all three parties unanimously and simultaneously agree, they can extend it, but the default setting is for this thing to go away, for this to expire. We have never put a termination date on a trade agreement. On all of the trade agreements we have done--and there are dozens--we have never had an expiration, and there is a good reason. The reason is, as you get anywhere close toward that expiration date, an uncertainty emerges about what the trade regime would be like if the agreement is not extended. That has a chilling effect on trade and investment, so it is a very bad idea. Our Trade Rep has argued that, well, these trade agreements ought to be renegotiated periodically anyway. First of all, not necessarily--a free and fair and reciprocal trade agreement that has no barriers to trade doesn't necessarily need to be renegotiated with any specific frequency, and secondly, it can be renegotiated without an expiration. The question is, What is the default setting? Do we assume the arrangement continues, or do we assume the arrangement ends? Unfortunately, in USMCA, it all comes to an end. There is another provision that is very disturbing, and that is the almost complete destruction of what is known as the investor-state dispute mechanism. This is the mechanism by which American investors in Canada and Mexico, in this case, can adjudicate a dispute because sometimes the local court in those countries does not treat the foreign investor--the American investor--in that country fairly. That happens sometimes. So 50 or more of our bilateral investment treaties and trade agreements have this mechanism, the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, so that if an American investor or an American employer with an investment overseas in one of these countries is being treated unfairly, they have a place to go to get a fair adjudication of their dispute. In March of 2018, 22 currently serving Republican Senators sent a letter to the Trade Representative. It says: ``ISDS provisions at least as strong as those contained in the existing NAFTA must be included in the modernized agreement to win congressional support.'' There is actually a broad consensus about its importance, which is why it is in every other trade agreement we have ever had. But USMCA completely guts these investor protections. It limits it very narrowly to just several sectors in Mexico and eliminates it entirely in Canada. The irony of this is, in the 30 years that we have had these investor-state dispute settlement provisions, every time the United States was a litigant, the United States won. This has been a jurisdiction that has been very, very helpful to the United States, and we have given it away. It is out the door. That is because there are some, I think, advocates for eliminating this who think, in a classic protectionist mindset, that an investment in another country necessarily comes at an expense to investment in America. That is completely wrong. Most investment overseas is meant to serve overseas markets, and it results in jobs in the United States in management and supervision and accounting and planning and all kinds of aspects of overseeing that investment overseas. But now we are going to have a chill imposed on this activity. Well, those provisions I just described were the deal as it was reached back in May, and at that point, our Democratic colleagues said that the agreement was not acceptable. So our Trade Rep and a number of House Members, in particular, entered into a whole new series of negotiations, and from there, the agreement got worse. What happened there--let me talk about just a couple of categories. One is a whole set of labor provisions. Basically, the United States forced Mexico to pass labor laws designed to facilitate the unionization of their factories. It is none of our business what the labor laws are in Mexico, but we forced them to pass these laws. Then it gets worse. The USMCA creates this elaborate mechanism by which American taxpayers are forced to pay to enforce Mexican labor laws. Richard Trumka, from the AFL-CIO, said: ``For the first time there truly will be enforceable labor standards--including a process that allows for the inspections of factories and facilities that are not living up to their obligations.'' So he is alluding to the mechanism that is established in USMCA to allow site inspections. I remind my colleagues that this agreement is fully reciprocal. I wonder how much American businesses are going to appreciate having Mexican inspectors come in to inspect their facilities to see if they are in compliance with American labor law. This is there because it is perceived to be in organized labor's economic interests. First, it increases the expense and diminishes the productivity of Mexican plants, which some people think is a good thing. I think it is a bad thing for American consumers to have to pay more than necessary. But in any case, American taxpayers are going to pay hundreds of millions of dollars over years to enforce another country's labor laws. Another provision that was insisted on in the latter parts of the negotiation is the removal of intellectual property protection for biologics. As you know, biologics are complex new medicines derived from living cells. It is one of the most exciting things in medicine because it has allowed scientists to use living organisms--or these cells from living organisms--to produce wonderful, wonderful curative medicines. It is very exciting. Under U.S. law, when a business develops such a new medicine, which comes at enormous cost to get it to market, we provide 12 years' worth of what we call data exclusivity. It is the exclusive ability to market that medicine so that the company can recoup the billions of dollars that are spent developing it. Well, 12 years is the period of protection we provide for that intellectual property. When the Trans-Pacific Partnership was being negotiated, the Obama administration insisted on at least 8 years. We are the only country that is, by far, the leading country in developing this new category of medicine. We are the ones who have the incentive to protect this intellectual property. Other countries--such as Mexico, Canada, and other countries around the world--don't really careabout protecting it because it is not theirs. They argue for less intellectual property protection; we argue for more. That is the general nature of the context. As I said, under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, everybody had agreed on 8 years. Not in USMCA. In USMCA, we agreed to zero--zero--no period of data exclusivity to protect the intellectual property of this very exciting, new kind of medicine. This is so ironic because right now--as an aside--we are in this ongoing, protracted, tough battle with China over a number of their economic practices. Chief among them is their theft of intellectual property. We are rightly insisting that we are going to defend and protect our intellectual property because it is the crown jewel of the American economy. The most precious thing we have is the creativity of the American people. So we are insisting that we have robust protection for intellectual property. Here, in USMCA, we give it away. We just give it away. There is another aspect of this that is important to consider, and that is that there is not going to be any boost to economic growth as a result of swapping out NAFTA for USMCA. The U.S. International Trade Commission, which is an independent agency, part of the U.S. Federal Government, did a big, extensive study, and they did a report. Their report said that USMCA will create a net of 176,000 jobs. Well, if that were true, it would be trivial in the context of our economy. Our economy has been creating more than that number of jobs every month for years now. It is a tiny number for 72 months when we have been producing more jobs than that each and every month--not over 72 months. But worse than being a very small number, it is just not true. The study says that, on balance, the trade restrictive provisions, some of which I alluded to, will diminish trade and cause U.S. growth to decline, and any offsetting growth just comes from reducing the uncertainty about whether the free trade and digital trade that I alluded to continues. However, the ITC cost-benefit analysis explicitly chose not to attempt to quantify the sunset clause. There is no question that is a negative. They didn't even attempt to quantify it. They did their analysis before these new labor provisions and before the abandonment of protection for intellectual property of biologics--before that even emerged on the scene. We know those have a negative effect on growth. The bottom line is, there is going to be no additional economic growth from this agreement. But there is a tax increase. The Congressional Budget Office did their analysis, and they concluded--rightly--that there will be tariffs added to the sales of cars. American consumers will be paying a tax increase in the form of this tariff on autos and auto parts. That is definitely part of this agreement. To conclude on the substantive matters, we took a true free trade agreement, and we added some constructive features. We did some modernizing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was constructive, but then we slapped on an expiration date. We imposed costly new restrictions on one of our trading partners. We eliminated the dispute settlement mechanism for U.S. investors. We dropped the intellectual property protection for the most innovative medicines we have. We saddled American taxpayers with $84 million over 4 years to enforce Mexican labor and environmental laws. For all of this, we get basically no additional economic growth--probably a little bit. It is worth noting that the Members of this body who have proudly and openly opposed every trade agreement they have ever been asked to cast a vote on--they voted no. On this, they are going to vote yes. For the first time in two decades, the AFL-CIO is supporting a trade deal when they have opposed all free trade agreements. There is a reason. It is because we are going backward on trade. It is because this agreement is designed to limit trade. A quick word on process here--this is important. The implementing legislation that is going to get to the floor one way or another sometime soon is not compliant with trade promotion authority. What that means is, it should not get the expedited treatment and the protection from all amendments that trade promotion authority confers on a narrow category of legislation that conforms completely--completely--with the trade promotion authority law. Let's remember a few fundamental things here. Trade policy is the responsibility of Congress. The Constitution assigns it to the U.S. Congress to establish trade policy, including the establishment of tariffs, the management of tariffs, and everything to do with trade. With TPA, we delegate the responsibility that is ours to the executive branch with a lot of conditions attached, and if they don't comply with those conditions, then this legislation shouldn't be whisked through Congress on a simple majority vote with no amendments, which is meant, under TPA, to be limited only to those pieces of legislation that comply entirely with the trade promotion act legislation. Here are a couple of specific ways in which this agreement violates the trade promotion authority. First of all, Congress did not receive the final agreement according to the timeframe contemplated by TPA. We are supposed to get the final agreement 30 days before there is a vote in committee or on the floor on the implementing language. The reason that is important is so that Congress can give some feedback to the administration. This is a draft that is meant to be a draft of the implementing legislation submitted to Congress so that Congress can then consider how it might want to make changes since this is, after all, our responsibility. The administration chose not to do that at all. They finalized this agreement in early to mid-December, and there was a vote on the House floor on the final version of the implementing language within a week or so--nothing close to the 30-day period that is meant to enable Congress to influence its own product. There is another provision in the trade promotion authority legislation that requires that the implementing legislation must contain only provisions ``strictly necessary or appropriate to implement such trade agreement.'' Why is that important? It is because we passed this legislation with a 51-vote threshold--simple majority threshold. Almost everything else in the Senate requires 60 votes. So we are saying that if you want to use the expedited process and if you want to be able to pass this legislation with a simple majority, you have to limit it only to that which is absolutely strictly necessary and appropriate for implementing this trade agreement; otherwise, obviously, people could stick in any old thing they want that they think there is a majority vote for if there are not 60 votes for it. In other words, abusing this narrow construct really dramatically underlines the 60-vote threshold for legislation in the Senate. Well, let me give you a few examples of cases where it is clearly being abused in this agreement. One is that there are appropriations in the implementing legislation. This is a complete first. In all of our trade agreements in the past, there has been a necessity for some spending. The appropriations bill to spend that money has always been a separate legislative vehicle precisely so that it would be open to scrutiny, subject to amendment, and subject to a 60-vote threshold. Not this time. The hundreds of millions of dollars of spending in this bill include, for instance, $50 million in salaries and expenses for the office of the U.S. Trade Rep. Well, maybe the folks at the U.S. Trade Rep all deserve a big raise; maybe that is true. But that should be done in a separate piece of legislation because it is not necessary and appropriate for the implementation of USMCA. Not only that, but they have taken all of this spending and imposed an emergency designation on it. There is an emergency designation on it. So, apparently, it is an emergency that the folks over at the U.S. Trade Rep's office get a pay raise. Apparently it is an emergency that all this money be spent. That is ridiculous; of course it is not. The reason they put the emergency designation on it is that spending in this body--spending in Congress that gets an emergency designation doesn't have to be offset. So if it exceeds the permissible maximum spending we have all agreed to and if you slap on an emergency designation, then that isOK. If you don't have the emergency designation, then new spending has to be offset with reduction in spending somewhere else. The reason we have the emergency designation is that emergencies actually can occur. There are earthquakes; there are fires; there are floods; and those happen. But I am sorry, a pay raise for staffers at the U.S. Trade Rep does not qualify. So, for a variety of reasons, this legislation we are going to be considering is not compliant with trade promotion authority. That doesn't mean it can't move. It simply means it needs to move under the regular order. It should be an ordinary bill on the floor as any ordinary legislation, and, sadly, from my point of view, I am pretty sure the votes are there to pass it. There are probably going to be the votes to pass what I think is a badly flawed agreement--an agreement that restricts trade rather than expanding trade. I certainly hope we will do it under the regular order because it does abuse trade promotion authority. The last point I would make is that I certainly hope this does not become a template for future trade agreements. We have an opportunity to do wonders for our constituents, our consumers, and our workers by reaching new and additional trade agreements with the UK, Japan, Vietnam, and all kinds of countries that have tremendous growth potential, and our economy will grow if we can work out mutual free trade agreements with these countries. I am very much in favor of that. I wouldn't want these protectionist, restrictionist policies that found their way into this agreement to be part of future agreements. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

2020-01-06

Mr. TOOMEY

Senate

CREC-2020-01-15-pt1-PgS208-2

formal

based

white supremacist

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, about 4 weeks after the House voted on the Articles of Impeachment, the House will name impeachment managers, and we will see those Impeachment Articles delivered here to the Senate, but for the impeachment managers' role in the Senate, that will conclude the House's participation in the impeachment process, and ours--the Senate's responsibilities--will begin. As I said, this vote occurs 4 weeks after the House concluded its whirlwind impeachment investigation. As I look more and more closely at this, it strikes me as a potential case of impeachment malpractice, and I will explain. Four weeks after they passed these two Articles of Impeachment, 4 weeks after they concluded the President has acted in a way to invoke our most extreme constitutional sanction that he should be removed from office, they finally will send these Impeachment Articles to us. As I look at the Impeachment Articles, I am astonished that even though we heard discussions of quid pro quo, bribery, and other crimes, the House of Representatives chose not to charge President Trump with a crime. How you then go on to prove a violation of the constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors when you don't even charge the President with a crime, I am looking forward to having the impeachment managers and the President's lawyers address that. At least at first blush, it does not appear to meet the constitutional standard of bribery, treason, high crimes, and misdemeanors. President Clinton was charged with a crime--the crime of perjury--but, here, President Trump has not been accused of a crime. The vague allegation is that he abused his office. That can mean anything to anybody. Just think, if we dumb down the standard for impeachment below the constitutional standard, what that does is it opens up the next President, who may have a House majority composed of the other party, vulnerable to charges of impeachment based on the allegation that he abused his office, even if they did not commit a high crime or misdemeanor. So impeachment becomes a political weapon, which is what this appears to be, rather than a constitutional obligation for the House and the Senate. Last month, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler, said on national television it was a ``rock-solid case'' against the President--``rock-solid,'' but in the moments after the House voted to impeach the President, there seemed to be a lot of doubt about whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the President of high crimes and misdemeanors; so much doubt, in fact, that it led the Speaker of the House to withhold the articles until the Senate promised to fill in the gaps left by the House's inadequate record. She sought promises from Senator McConnell, the majority leader, that the Senate would continue the House's investigation--continue the House's investigation--the one which only a few weeks prior one of her top Members said was a rock-solid case. Well, it either is or isn't. I would say that the Speaker's actions and her cold feet and her reluctance to send the Impeachment Articles here for the last month indicate to me that she is less than confident that the House has done their job. As a matter of fact, in the second Article of Impeachment, they charged the President with obstruction of Congress. Here is the factual underpinning of that allegation: Chairman Schiff would issue a subpoena to somebody who works at the White House. They would say: Well, I have to go to court to get the judge to direct me because I have conflicting obligations--a subpoena from Congress and perhaps a claim of some privilege based on confidential communications with the President. Rather than pursue that in court, which is what happened in the Clinton impeachment and what should happen in any dispute over executive privilege, Chairman Adam Schiff of the House Intelligence Committee dropped them like a hot potato, and they simply moved on in their rush to impeach without that testimony and without that evidence. So now they want the Senate to make up for their failure here by calling additional witnesses. I sometimes joke that I am a recovering lawyer and a recovering judge. I spent 20 years or more of my life either in courtrooms trying cases or presiding over those cases or reviewing the cases that had been tried based on an appellate record in the Texas Supreme Court. Our system of justice is based on an adversary system. You have the prosecutor who charges a crime--that is basically what the Articles of Impeachment are analogous to--and then you have a jury and a judge who try the case presented by the prosecution. We have a strange, even bizarre, suggestion by the Democratic leader in the Senate that somehow the jury ought to call additional witnesses before we even listen to the arguments of the President, his lawyers, and the impeachment managers who spent 12 weeks getting 100 hours or more worth of testimony from 17 different witnesses. So this discussion about whether there will be witnesses or no witnesses is kind of maddening to me. Of course, there will be witnesses--witnesses whom the impeachment managers choose to present, maybe through their sworn testimony and not live in the well of the Senate, but it is no different in terms of its legal effect, or witnesses and evidence, documentary evidence, that the President's lawyers choose to present. I think the majority leader has wisely proposed--and now it looks like 53 Senators have agreed--that we defer this whole issue of additional witnesses until after both sides have had the chance to present their case and Senators have a chance to ask questions in writing. This is going to be a very difficult process for people who make their living talking all the time, which is what Senators do. Sitting here and being forced to listen and let other people do the talking is going to be a challenge, but we will have a chance to ask questions in writing, and the Chief Justice will direct those questions to the appropriate party--either the impeachment managers or the President's lawyers--and they will attempt to answer those questions. As I look at this record more, I am beginning to wonder whether the basicfacts are really disputed. So when people talk about calling additional witnesses, I think what they are more interested in is a show trial and getting cameras and media coverage rather than actually resolving any disputed facts and applying the legal standard--which is what the Constitution provides--in order to decide whether the President should be acquitted or convicted. That should be the role of the Senate sitting as a jury. The House, it seems, was under no deadline--other than an internally imposed deadline--to complete their impeachment investigation. They could have subpoenaed more witnesses. They could have waited for those subpoenas to play their way out in court and held a vote once they truly believed they had sufficient evidence to impeach the President, enough evidence that they felt confident presenting at a Senate trial. If a prosecutor were to do in a court of law what the House impeachment inquiry did, they would be justly accused of malpractice. To drop the witnesses rather than to actually go to court to try to get the testimony you need in order to support the Articles of Impeachment, that is malpractice because you know if this were a court of law, in all likelihood, the judge would summarily dismiss the case, saying: You haven't shown the evidence to support the charges that the grand jury--in this case, the House--has made under the Articles of Impeachment. We know that rather than develop the record that would be sufficient to prove their case, Members of the House gave themselves an arbitrary deadline for their investigation and made speed their top priority. Now finding themselves with the short end of the stick, they are trying to pin their regrets and their malpractice on Members of the Senate. Our Democratic colleagues are trying to paint the picture in a way that makes it look like Senate Republicans are failing in their duties, but we will fulfill our constitutional role and duties. The only question is, did the House perform their constitutional duties in an adequate way to meet the constitutional standard? Speaker Pelosi went so far as to say that failing to allow additional witnesses would result in a ``coverup.'' I think I have heard that same charge by the Democratic leader here. I don't really understand the logic of that one. It seems like the only coverup happening is when the Speaker is covering up her caucus's shoddy and insufficient investigation. She is trying to distract from the fact that there is very little, if any, evidence to support the Articles of Impeachment. She is trying to place the blame on the Senate--a strategy you don't have to have x-ray vision to see through. The Speaker went so far as to say last Sunday that Senators will ``pay a price'' for not calling witnesses, but I think they are now beginning to take the mask off and expose their true motivation. Based on what we know now, this is no longer about 67 votes to convict and remove President Trump; this is about forcing Senators who are running for election in 2020 to take tough political votes that can be then exploited in TV ads. That seems to me to demean this whole impeachment affair. This is a thermonuclear weapon in a constitutional sense. To accuse someone of high crimes and misdemeanors and to seek to convict them in a court and remove them from office is a very serious matter, but it has been treated and is being treated like a trivial political matter, a political football. Based on the way that Speaker Pelosi and others have characterized the need for additional witnesses, you would think no one had testified before or had been deposed. But that would be to ignore the House Intelligence Committee's 298-page report--a 298-page report--detailing their impeachment inquiry. It details the actions of the committee, including dozens of subpoenas and the taking of more than 100 hours of testimony from 17 witnesses. So when somebody says this is a question of witnesses or no witnesses, I say that is not true. Those are not the facts. We already have 100 hours of testimony that could be presented in the Senate if it is actually relevant to the Articles of Impeachment, to what is charged. To be clear, all the information will be available to the Senate, and the testimony of 17 of those witnesses will likely be presented by the impeachment managers. Again, our Democratic friends in the House apparently are having a little bit of buyer's remorse, cold feet. Pick your metaphor. With 4 weeks of deep contemplation separating them from the impeachment vote they took, they no longer believe, apparently, that they have enough evidence to prove a high crime and misdemeanor, which is the constitutional standard. As for that 298-page report that they were once so proud of, apparently now they concede by their actions that it falls short of that rock-solid case they promised. So rather than taking responsibility for their own impeachment malpractice, rather than admitting that they rushed through the investigation, skipped over witnesses whom they now deem critical to the inquiry, they try now to blame the Senate and put the burden of proof on our shoulders. Well, as I said earlier, there is no question whether witnesses will be presented. Some of them will be presented who testified in the House of Representatives--the 17 witnesses who testified over 100 hours. I think the Senate, based on the vote of 53 Senators, has wisely deferred whether additional witnesses will be subpoenaed until after we have had a chance to hear from the parties to the impeachment and an opportunity by Senators to actually ask clarification questions. Leader McConnell has been consistent in saying that we wouldn't be naming witnesses before the start of the trial, in line with the precedent set by the Clinton impeachment trial. Ironically, the Democratic leader was in a position during the Clinton impeachment trial that no additional witnesses should be offered and now finds himself, ironically enough, in the opposite posture based on nothing more than the difference in the identity of the President being impeached. To reiterate, we will have a chance to hear the arguments from both sides, along with any documents they choose to present. We will move to the Senators' questions, and then we will decide whether more evidence is required. I personally am disinclined to have the jury conduct the trial by demanding additional evidence. I think that is the role of the impeachment managers and of the President's lawyers. I know fair-minded people can differ, and if 51 Senators want additional witnesses under this resolution, they will have an opportunity to have them subpoenaed. This is going to be a fair process, unlike the House process, which has been--well, I was going to say ``a three-ring circus,'' but that is not fair to the circus. We are going to have a dignified, sober, and deliberate process here, befitting the gravity of what we have been asked to decide. No one, neither the prosecution nor the defense, will be precluded from participating. As a matter of fact, they will drive the process. That is the way trials are conducted in every courthouse in America, and that is the process we should adopt here. In stark contrast to the partisan chaos that consumed the impeachment inquiry in the House, we are going to restore order, civility, and fairness. Over the last 4 weeks, there has been a whole lot of talk but not much action from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the House. They have taken what should be a serious and solemn responsibility in Congress and turned it into a partisan playground less than a year before the next election, when tens of millions of Americans will be voting on their choice for President of the United States. By needlessly withholding the Articles of Impeachment for 4 weeks, the Speaker has all but ensured that the Senate's impeachment trial will overlap with the Iowa caucuses. That is where our Democratic friends will choose their Presidential primary winner, starting with the Iowa caucuses. This trial could even stretch into the New Hampshire primary or the Nevada caucuses. I find it curious that the Speaker's decision will force four Senators who are actually running for President in those primary contests to leave the campaign trail in these battleground States and come back to Washington, DC, and be glued to their seats, sitting as jurors during this trial, when I am sure they would rather be out on the hustings. Rather thanshaking hands with voters, they will be sitting here like the rest of us. That will be a big blow to their election. Based on what we have seen in the press, these four Senators aren't what I would call ``happy campers,'' and I don't blame them. You had better believe, though, that their competitors are celebrating. They are going to have the Iowa caucuses, perhaps, and maybe New Hampshire and Nevada all to themselves while these four Senators who are running for President in the Democratic primary will have to be here like the rest of us. So, in holding the articles for 4 weeks, the Speaker just cleared out some of the top contenders in the Presidential primaries--the early ones--and it is pretty clear that the candidate who stands the most to gain from their absence is former Vice President Biden. The politics of this impeachment circus show that it was never a serious one. A constitutional issue? Wrong. It was a political exercise from the start, meant to hurt this President and help the Speaker's party elect a Democrat in his stead in November--or at least Nancy Pelosi's friends in the Democratic Party. Over these last 4 weeks, we have been standing by, waiting to do our duty, wasting valuable time, while the Democrats in the House try to come to terms with their embarrassing and inadequate investigation, and watching them as they try to figure out how they could possibly get themselves out of this embarrassing box canyon they have walked into. I know we are all eager for the process to finally shift from the House's hands to the Senate, and I am hopeful that later this evening we will finally be free from Speaker Pelosi's manipulative games when it comes to impeachment.

2020-01-06

Mr. CORNYN

Senate

CREC-2020-01-15-pt1-PgS211

formal

terrorist

Islamophobic

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, last week we were very close to an act of war between the United States and Iran. I must tell you, we have been talking about this potential threat for a long time. I am a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We have held numerous meetings in our discussion about the fact that there is no authorization for the use of military force by the United States against Iran that has been approved by Congress. I remember, during hearings, listening to administrative witnesses who said: Well, there is no intent to use force against Iran. Well, Congress did not act. Even though, I must tell you, several of our colleagues, including this Senator, had urged us to take up an authorization for the use of military force in regards to the problems in the Middle East, there was no action taken. I want to applaud Senator Kaine, who has been working on this for several years, and our former colleague Senator Flake, who did everything they could to bring a bipartisan discussion and action in regards to exercising congressional responsibility on the use of force by our military. Well, we now know that this is a real threat, that we may be going to war without Congress's involvement, which is contrary not only to our Constitution but to the laws passed by the U.S. Congress. So I want to thank Senator Kaine and Senator Lee for filing S.J. Res. 68, a bipartisan resolution. I hope it will receive the expedited process that is envisioned in the War Powers Resolution, and I hope that we will have a chance to act on this in the next few days. It is our responsibility--Congress's responsibility--to commit our troops to combat, and it rests squarely with the legislative branch of government. Let me first cite the Constitution of the United States. You hear a lot of discussion about the Constitution here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Article I, section 8, of the Constitution says that Congress has the power to declare war. Now, that was challenged in the 1970s, after Congress had passed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in regards to our presence in Vietnam. It was passed in an innocent way to protect American troops and ships that were in that region, but as we know, that resolution was used as justification by President Johnson and others to expand our involvement in Vietnam and, ultimately, led to a very active and costly war for the United States--and lengthy war, I might add. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Act. It wasn't easy. President Nixon vetoed it. We overrode the veto in a bipartisan vote in the U.S. Congress. We did that because of the abuse of power during the Vietnam war. Let me read what the War Powers Act provides because it is very telling in regard to what we saw last week in regard to Iran, a little over a week ago now. It requires consultation with Congress by the President ``in every possible instance before committing troops to war.'' No. 1, it requires the President to consult with us before he commits any of our troops to an engagement. No. 2, the President is required to report within 48 hours ``into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.'' So it provides for the imminent involvement or threat to the United States. No. 3, the President is ``required to end foreign military action after 60 days unless Congress provides a declaration of war or an authorization for the operation to continue.'' We now know that to be an AUMF, an authorization for the use of military force. Let's fast forward from the passage of that bill in 1973 to rein in the abuse of power by the Executive during the Vietnam war. Let's fast forward to what happened in early January, on January 2, when President Trump ordered the action against Soleimani in Baghdad and took out his life. Let me start off by saying, none of us has any sorrow over the loss of General Soleimani. He was a bad guy. He was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people. He was very much a person who should have been held accountable for his activities, but there is a reason for our constitutional protections of checks and balances as it relates to the use of military force by the United States. The Commander in Chief has certain powers. Congress has certain powers. The Framers of our Constitution intentionally provided for there to be a robust discussion and debate between the legislature and the Executive on war and peace; that we should have that open discussion; and that, in many cases, diplomacy needs to be pursued much more aggressively before we use our military might; that our national security interest in keeping America safe rests with these checks and balances. Again, to bring it to current times in regard to the circumstances with Iran, every witness I have listened to, every expert I have talked to with regard to the Middle East, says it is in the U.S. national security interest to find a diplomatic way to handle our issues in regard to Iran; that a military option would be very costly, a long time, and, most likely, counterproductive with the United States having to keep its troops in that region for a very long time. Diplomacy is clearly the preferred path. These constitutional provisions provide us with an opportunity to be able to make sure we do what is in the best interest of American national security. Trump ordered this attack, and the Senate now needs to act, as we saw in the 1970s when Congress did act. Let me start with the War Powers Act and how President Trump had violated the War Powers Act in all three of the provisions I mentioned earlier. First, was there an imminent involvement or threat? We have all now heard the explanations given by this administration. It was short on detail. It was basically the general concerns. What is most disturbing, we now read press accounts that the President had been planning for months--or the generals had been planning and going over with the President for months whether they should take out General Soleimani. If they had been planning for months, why didn't they consult with Congress, as required under the War Powers Act? Violation No. 1 to the War Powers Act: Congress was not consulted by President Trump. No. 2, there are two violations so far; the fact that there wasn't an imminent threat and the fact that there was no consultation with Congress--two violations of the War Powers Act. Then, if he continues to use force beyond the 60 days, he has to come to Congress and get authorization or he has to remove the troops. Does anyone here believe the President will not hesitate again to use force against Iran? Yet there are no intentions to submit a resolution. We find the President has violated the War Powers Act in three ways: first, by having no evidence of imminent threat; second, by not consulting with Congress before the attack; and third, by not submitting to us an authorization for the use of military force. There are some who say the President already has that authority under the authorizations for the use of military force that were passed by Congress after the attack on our country on September 11, 2001. We are getting to 18 years beyond when that attack took place and those authorizations passed, but let me go through them. The one that is cited the most by the President is the 2002, which is to ``defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.'' First, let me say, I voted against that resolution, and I believe that was the correct vote, but I think almost everybody in this body would say that authorization is no longer relevant. Since that resolution was passed, the United States has worked with Iraq and has worked with the Government of Iraq. This is a country we try to do business with, so they no longer present the threat that was supposedly present when this resolution was passed. Even to get beyond that, what does Iran have to do with Iraq? I understand they may start with the first letter ``I,'' but there is no relationship here. Under any stretch of the imagination, there is no way you can use the 2002 resolution. Let's go to the 2001 resolution that was passed on the authorization for use of military force. That was immediately after the attack on September 11: `` . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.'' There is absolutely zero connection between that language and General Soleimani or Iran as it relates to 9/11, and I think no one could make that connection. I understand that 2001 has been misused by many administrations. There is no question, I would concur in that conclusion, but in all of those cases, they tried to connect dots. There is no connection of dots here whatsoever. As we saw in the late 1960s and 1970s in Vietnam, when we had the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that was passed to defend our assets in the Vietnam area--in the Gulf of Tonkin--how it was used by administrations to commit us to a long, engaged military operations. Here, one cannot argue that there is even a semblance of authorization that has been passed by Congress as it relates to Iran. We also know the President is violating the War Powers Act, and he is likely to use force again in violation of our Constitution and the War Powers Act. It was my generation that paid a very heavy price because of the Vietnam war. I lost a lot of my high school classmates in the Vietnam war. Let us not exceed our responsibility under the Constitution or allow the President to exceed his. We need to act. The Senate needs to act. We don't need another endless war. The resolution before us allows us to do what is responsible. I am going to quote from the resolution that Senator Kaine has filed, S.J. Res. 68: `` . . . the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities against . . . Iran or any part of its government or military, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran.'' By the way, the resolution also provides that we always have the right to defend ourselves from an imminent threat, provided that it is an imminent threat, and that we comply with the War Powers Act--I am adding this--that was passed by Congress. The President has a long track record of exceeding his constitutional authority on matters of foreign policy. We cannot afford to become accustomed or complacent in the face of those excesses. It is our responsibility to carry out our constitutional responsibility. I urge my colleagues to strongly support S.J. Res. 68 when we have a chance to vote on that, I hope, within the next few days. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

2020-01-06

Mr. CARDIN

Senate

CREC-2020-01-15-pt1-PgS213-2

formal

election integrity

racist

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, at this particular moment in our history, we are witnessing the convergence of three events. The Senate will likely be sworn in tomorrow for the impeachment trial of President Trump. One of the Articles of Impeachment that will be coming over from the House relates to the President's abuse of power--the charge that he has used the power and prestige of the Office of the Presidency to, among other things, withhold vital U.S. security assistance to Ukraine in order to pressure it to announce an investigation into Burisma, Hunter Biden, and, possibly, Joe Biden in an attempt to get Ukraine to interfere in the upcoming 2020 election on behalf of President Trump. Now, I am not here today to go into issues directly related to that trial. It is vitally important that we get relevant witnesses, that we get relevantdocuments, and that we have a fair trial and get to the truth. The second event that we learned about just this week that relates to the impeachment trial was that Russian military hackers broke into the Burisma computers in Ukraine and that they used the same phishing techniques that the GRU used--the Russian military intelligence--to break into the Democratic National Committee headquarters' servers during the 2016 Presidential elections. All of the evidence points to another attempt by Vladimir Putin to use his military GRU hackers to interfere in an American election--this time in the 2020 election. I don't know what is going to happen during the election on November 3 of this year. Obviously, each of us has his hopes as to what the result will be, but that is not the purpose of my being here on the floor today. My focus is on what should unite all of us in this body--that should unite all 100 U.S. Senators--and that is that we should all agree that it is outrageous for any foreign power to interfere in an American election the way Russia interfered in our election in 2016 and that it would be equally outrageous for us, in our knowing that this is Russia's intent in 2020, to sit here and not do anything to protect the integrity of our democracy. Look, we all know what happened in 2016. Just to refresh our memories, it was the unanimous conclusion of all U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the 2016 Presidential election. That was the unanimous conclusion of the leaders of intelligence agencies appointed by President Trump. It was also the bipartisan verdict of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which painstakingly documented the fact that elections systems in all 50 of our States were targeted to one degree or another by Russian hackers in the 2016 elections. In fact, we know this from the outcome of the Mueller investigation that led to the indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence individuals, members of the GRU. They were indicted because of their interference in the 2016 elections. We also know that Vladimir Putin and the Russians intend to interfere in our elections again in 2020. We know that because of the revelations this week about the actions the GRU is taking with respect to Burisma--same fingerprint, same techniques--but we also know that from our own U.S. intelligence agencies, which, in November of last year, all got together to issue a warning that Russia was going to interfere again in 2020. I am holding in my hand a joint statement from the leaders of U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and what they say is that our adversaries--and they point to Russia--will seek to interfere in the voting process or influence voter perceptions. This document is not about the past. This document is not about 2016. This document is about the here and now and the November 2020 elections. And this is, again, from the heads of our intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies who have been appointed by President Trump. Now we have overwhelming evidence that Russia interfered in 2016, we have overwhelming evidence and predictions that Russia will interfere again in our elections in 2020, and so we clearly are facing an immediate danger to the integrity of our elections and our democracy. It is like we have a Russian missile in the air right now headed toward our election integrity systems and our electoral process. That is what the intelligence agencies are telling us right now. We learned the hard way in 2016, and now it is happening all over again. So the question for this body is, When you know something is happening, what are you going to do about it? There are two things we should be doing about it. We should be working to strengthen our elections systems here at home, to harden them, to make it more difficult for Russian military intelligence to hack into them. We should be working with social media companies to prevent the Russian Government and their agents from spending money on advertising on social media or using other techniques on social media to influence American voters. We need to be doing all that. We have appropriated some funds to do that. We should be doing more than we have, but the best defense is a good offense. We can and should spend money to strengthen and protect our elections systems, but that is not enough because it is kind of like the arms race. We will work to try to better strengthen and protect those systems, and the hackers who are trying to get in will develop new techniques to try to get around them. It is an endless cycle. That doesn't mean we shouldn't harden them--we should--but that is not enough to protect the integrity of our elections. We have to apply the principle that the best defense is a good offense and make it clear up front to Vladimir Putin and Russia that the costs of interfering in another American election far outweigh the benefits. That is what we need to do because right now it is absolutely cost-free to Vladimir Putin to mess around in our elections. In fact, it is a big benefit to Vladimir Putin and the Russians. That is why they do it. What do they accomplish? Well, first of all, they succeed in dividing Americans against one another. They succeed in undermining public confidence in the outcome of our elections, and that is part of their overall strategy--to try to undermine democracies, whether here in the United States or in Europe or other places around the world. Maybe they also succeed, ultimately, in weighing in and helping their preferred candidate in an election. But the point is, right now, if you are Putin, there is zero cost to getting caught interfering in our elections and lots of perceived benefits by Vladimir Putin. So that is why, more than 2 years ago, Senator Marco Rubio and I introduced the bipartisan DETER Act, and there are many other Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, who were on that bill. The DETER Act is very straightforward. It would enact into law a very straightforward proposition. It says to Russia--and also to other countries, but the main attack seems to be coming from Russia--it says to Putin and Russia: If we catch you again interfering in our elections, there will be immediate and very harsh penalties for you to pay. This will happen virtually automatically. So Vladimir Putin will know up front that if our intelligence agencies catch them again, which they are likely to do, then he will finally pay a price for interfering in our elections and trying to undermine our democratic processes. These are not sanctions against a couple of Putin's pals. These are not sanctions against a couple oligarchs. These would be sanctions against major sectors of the Russian economy--state-owned banks, state-owned parts of their energy industry--so their economy will take a big hit if we catch them attacking our democracy once again. That is absolutely appropriate because what Putin is doing is undermining faith and confidence in our democratic process, and we need to make it clear up front that there is a big price to pay--not because we want those sanctions to go into effect but because we don't. That, of course, is the entire idea behind deterrence. You raise the cost, you raise the price on Putin and Russia to the point it is no longer worth it to interfere in our elections. That is why Senator Rubio and I introduced this legislation 2 years ago. We hoped it would be in place before the 2018 midterm elections, but that date has passed, and still here we are in the U.S. Senate having failed to adopt this bipartisan legislation. I was right here on the floor of the Senate just a few months ago when we were debating the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act. I asked for a vote to include the essential provision of the DETER Act in the Defense authorization bill because it makes a lot of sense that in a bill that is supposed to defend the United States, we include a provision to defend the integrity of our democracy and electoral system against Russian attack or any other attack. Apparently every single Senator in this body agreed because it passed unanimously. The Senate went on record unanimously saying we should include provisions like the DETER Act in the NDAA to deter Russian interference in our elections. Then we were in negotiations on the NDAA, and it turned out that in the back rooms, behind closed doors, the Trump administration got Republican Senators to insist on throwing that provision out of the NDAA bill. This was one of the matters that was discussed until the final stages of negotiations on the NDAA, and apparently the majority leader and other Republican Senators, at the behest of the Trump administration, said no--said no to a provision that had been agreed to unanimously by this body to help protect our elections by deterring Russian interference. The question is, Why? Why, when our own intelligence agencies are telling us that Russia is planning to do in 2020 what they did in 2016, would Republican Senate leaders block a provision that lets Putin know ``You will be punished if you do that again. You will be punished if you attack our democracy''? And I haven't gotten a straight answer to that question. Why not? Why not include that provision? Clearly, there are Senators who don't want to build up our defenses and deterrence again Russian interference in our elections. When we failed to get that into the NDAA, I came to the Senate floor, and I asked for unanimous consent to bring up the bipartisan DETER Act. Because every one of the Senators in this body had voted or said through lack of objection that they wanted the DETER Act in the NDAA, I brought up the bill for unanimous consent passing here. Well, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee came to the floor and objected, and we had a back-and-forth conversation about the DETER Act. Yesterday, I was planning to come to this floor and again ask for unanimous consent to take up the DETER Act, but we heard from the chairman of the Banking Committee that he wanted to find a way to get this done. So I am going to take the chairman of the Banking Committee up on that offer, and I hope we can get it done. But I want to be really clear. If we are not able to work this out in a smart, straightforward way, which is what the bill does right now--as I said, it has strong bipartisan support right now--then I will be back on the Senate floor regularly to ask for unanimous consent, and any other Senator who wants to come down here and object can do that. That is their right. But I am going to keep pushing this issue because the clock is ticking. Every day that passes while we know from our own intelligence agencies that Russia plans to interfere in the 2020 election and we don't do anything about it--we are grossly negligent. I want Senators who are not going to support that to come here in the light of day and let the American public know they are blocking that effort. I hope we don't have to do that. I hope we can work this out. I hope we can pass the bipartisan legislation that has been sitting in the Senate for over 2 years now as we get warning after warning after warning that Vladimir Putin, the GRU, and the Russians intend to interfere in our democratic process again and attack the integrity of our electoral system. Let's get this done. Let's protect our democracy. Let's make it clear in advance to Putin that the price he will pay for trying to interfere in our democracy will be much higher than any benefit he expects to gain. I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Senate

CREC-2020-01-15-pt1-PgS215

formal

single

homophobic

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, at this particular moment in our history, we are witnessing the convergence of three events. The Senate will likely be sworn in tomorrow for the impeachment trial of President Trump. One of the Articles of Impeachment that will be coming over from the House relates to the President's abuse of power--the charge that he has used the power and prestige of the Office of the Presidency to, among other things, withhold vital U.S. security assistance to Ukraine in order to pressure it to announce an investigation into Burisma, Hunter Biden, and, possibly, Joe Biden in an attempt to get Ukraine to interfere in the upcoming 2020 election on behalf of President Trump. Now, I am not here today to go into issues directly related to that trial. It is vitally important that we get relevant witnesses, that we get relevantdocuments, and that we have a fair trial and get to the truth. The second event that we learned about just this week that relates to the impeachment trial was that Russian military hackers broke into the Burisma computers in Ukraine and that they used the same phishing techniques that the GRU used--the Russian military intelligence--to break into the Democratic National Committee headquarters' servers during the 2016 Presidential elections. All of the evidence points to another attempt by Vladimir Putin to use his military GRU hackers to interfere in an American election--this time in the 2020 election. I don't know what is going to happen during the election on November 3 of this year. Obviously, each of us has his hopes as to what the result will be, but that is not the purpose of my being here on the floor today. My focus is on what should unite all of us in this body--that should unite all 100 U.S. Senators--and that is that we should all agree that it is outrageous for any foreign power to interfere in an American election the way Russia interfered in our election in 2016 and that it would be equally outrageous for us, in our knowing that this is Russia's intent in 2020, to sit here and not do anything to protect the integrity of our democracy. Look, we all know what happened in 2016. Just to refresh our memories, it was the unanimous conclusion of all U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the 2016 Presidential election. That was the unanimous conclusion of the leaders of intelligence agencies appointed by President Trump. It was also the bipartisan verdict of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which painstakingly documented the fact that elections systems in all 50 of our States were targeted to one degree or another by Russian hackers in the 2016 elections. In fact, we know this from the outcome of the Mueller investigation that led to the indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence individuals, members of the GRU. They were indicted because of their interference in the 2016 elections. We also know that Vladimir Putin and the Russians intend to interfere in our elections again in 2020. We know that because of the revelations this week about the actions the GRU is taking with respect to Burisma--same fingerprint, same techniques--but we also know that from our own U.S. intelligence agencies, which, in November of last year, all got together to issue a warning that Russia was going to interfere again in 2020. I am holding in my hand a joint statement from the leaders of U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and what they say is that our adversaries--and they point to Russia--will seek to interfere in the voting process or influence voter perceptions. This document is not about the past. This document is not about 2016. This document is about the here and now and the November 2020 elections. And this is, again, from the heads of our intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies who have been appointed by President Trump. Now we have overwhelming evidence that Russia interfered in 2016, we have overwhelming evidence and predictions that Russia will interfere again in our elections in 2020, and so we clearly are facing an immediate danger to the integrity of our elections and our democracy. It is like we have a Russian missile in the air right now headed toward our election integrity systems and our electoral process. That is what the intelligence agencies are telling us right now. We learned the hard way in 2016, and now it is happening all over again. So the question for this body is, When you know something is happening, what are you going to do about it? There are two things we should be doing about it. We should be working to strengthen our elections systems here at home, to harden them, to make it more difficult for Russian military intelligence to hack into them. We should be working with social media companies to prevent the Russian Government and their agents from spending money on advertising on social media or using other techniques on social media to influence American voters. We need to be doing all that. We have appropriated some funds to do that. We should be doing more than we have, but the best defense is a good offense. We can and should spend money to strengthen and protect our elections systems, but that is not enough because it is kind of like the arms race. We will work to try to better strengthen and protect those systems, and the hackers who are trying to get in will develop new techniques to try to get around them. It is an endless cycle. That doesn't mean we shouldn't harden them--we should--but that is not enough to protect the integrity of our elections. We have to apply the principle that the best defense is a good offense and make it clear up front to Vladimir Putin and Russia that the costs of interfering in another American election far outweigh the benefits. That is what we need to do because right now it is absolutely cost-free to Vladimir Putin to mess around in our elections. In fact, it is a big benefit to Vladimir Putin and the Russians. That is why they do it. What do they accomplish? Well, first of all, they succeed in dividing Americans against one another. They succeed in undermining public confidence in the outcome of our elections, and that is part of their overall strategy--to try to undermine democracies, whether here in the United States or in Europe or other places around the world. Maybe they also succeed, ultimately, in weighing in and helping their preferred candidate in an election. But the point is, right now, if you are Putin, there is zero cost to getting caught interfering in our elections and lots of perceived benefits by Vladimir Putin. So that is why, more than 2 years ago, Senator Marco Rubio and I introduced the bipartisan DETER Act, and there are many other Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, who were on that bill. The DETER Act is very straightforward. It would enact into law a very straightforward proposition. It says to Russia--and also to other countries, but the main attack seems to be coming from Russia--it says to Putin and Russia: If we catch you again interfering in our elections, there will be immediate and very harsh penalties for you to pay. This will happen virtually automatically. So Vladimir Putin will know up front that if our intelligence agencies catch them again, which they are likely to do, then he will finally pay a price for interfering in our elections and trying to undermine our democratic processes. These are not sanctions against a couple of Putin's pals. These are not sanctions against a couple oligarchs. These would be sanctions against major sectors of the Russian economy--state-owned banks, state-owned parts of their energy industry--so their economy will take a big hit if we catch them attacking our democracy once again. That is absolutely appropriate because what Putin is doing is undermining faith and confidence in our democratic process, and we need to make it clear up front that there is a big price to pay--not because we want those sanctions to go into effect but because we don't. That, of course, is the entire idea behind deterrence. You raise the cost, you raise the price on Putin and Russia to the point it is no longer worth it to interfere in our elections. That is why Senator Rubio and I introduced this legislation 2 years ago. We hoped it would be in place before the 2018 midterm elections, but that date has passed, and still here we are in the U.S. Senate having failed to adopt this bipartisan legislation. I was right here on the floor of the Senate just a few months ago when we were debating the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act. I asked for a vote to include the essential provision of the DETER Act in the Defense authorization bill because it makes a lot of sense that in a bill that is supposed to defend the United States, we include a provision to defend the integrity of our democracy and electoral system against Russian attack or any other attack. Apparently every single Senator in this body agreed because it passed unanimously. The Senate went on record unanimously saying we should include provisions like the DETER Act in the NDAA to deter Russian interference in our elections. Then we were in negotiations on the NDAA, and it turned out that in the back rooms, behind closed doors, the Trump administration got Republican Senators to insist on throwing that provision out of the NDAA bill. This was one of the matters that was discussed until the final stages of negotiations on the NDAA, and apparently the majority leader and other Republican Senators, at the behest of the Trump administration, said no--said no to a provision that had been agreed to unanimously by this body to help protect our elections by deterring Russian interference. The question is, Why? Why, when our own intelligence agencies are telling us that Russia is planning to do in 2020 what they did in 2016, would Republican Senate leaders block a provision that lets Putin know ``You will be punished if you do that again. You will be punished if you attack our democracy''? And I haven't gotten a straight answer to that question. Why not? Why not include that provision? Clearly, there are Senators who don't want to build up our defenses and deterrence again Russian interference in our elections. When we failed to get that into the NDAA, I came to the Senate floor, and I asked for unanimous consent to bring up the bipartisan DETER Act. Because every one of the Senators in this body had voted or said through lack of objection that they wanted the DETER Act in the NDAA, I brought up the bill for unanimous consent passing here. Well, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee came to the floor and objected, and we had a back-and-forth conversation about the DETER Act. Yesterday, I was planning to come to this floor and again ask for unanimous consent to take up the DETER Act, but we heard from the chairman of the Banking Committee that he wanted to find a way to get this done. So I am going to take the chairman of the Banking Committee up on that offer, and I hope we can get it done. But I want to be really clear. If we are not able to work this out in a smart, straightforward way, which is what the bill does right now--as I said, it has strong bipartisan support right now--then I will be back on the Senate floor regularly to ask for unanimous consent, and any other Senator who wants to come down here and object can do that. That is their right. But I am going to keep pushing this issue because the clock is ticking. Every day that passes while we know from our own intelligence agencies that Russia plans to interfere in the 2020 election and we don't do anything about it--we are grossly negligent. I want Senators who are not going to support that to come here in the light of day and let the American public know they are blocking that effort. I hope we don't have to do that. I hope we can work this out. I hope we can pass the bipartisan legislation that has been sitting in the Senate for over 2 years now as we get warning after warning after warning that Vladimir Putin, the GRU, and the Russians intend to interfere in our democratic process again and attack the integrity of our electoral system. Let's get this done. Let's protect our democracy. Let's make it clear in advance to Putin that the price he will pay for trying to interfere in our democracy will be much higher than any benefit he expects to gain. I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Senate

CREC-2020-01-15-pt1-PgS215

formal

terrorist

Islamophobic

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss U.S. policy regarding Iran. We know that in 2009 the new Obama administration came into office at a time when the Iranian regime was racing to develop a nuclear weapon. The prospect of the Iranian regime with a nuclear weapon would present a substantial threat to America and to our allies. At the same time, Iran was engaged in a host of other malign activities, but the most urgent and significant threat was nuclear. In 2013, Iran was 2 to 3 months from being able to build a nuclear weapon. The Obama administration decided to use hard-nosed diplomacy resulting in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, known by the acronym JCPOA. This agreement was entered into with a number of countries, three of them our allies--the United Kingdom, France and Germany. We also had two partner countries--countries with which we have a lot of tensions and conflict. We were partners with China and Russia. So this agreement stretched from one end of the world to the other. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action prevented Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon by, among other steps, authorizing some of the most intrusive inspections that have ever been put into place. This agreement, the JCPOA, did not cover several other nonnuclear malign activities that the Iranian regime was and is engaged in. The JCPOA isolated and largely solved the most dire threat, that of a nuclear-armed Iran in the near future. This agreement, from its signing in 2015 through 2018, worked. Until recently, Iran was complying with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. That is the considered judgment of the International Atomic Energy Agency, known as IAEA. The considered judgment of the U.S. intelligence community was that Iran was complying with the agreement. It was also the judgment made by the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of Defense in both the Obama administration and the Trump administration. The determination that Iran was complying with the agreement is also the assessment of our allies and partners with whom the Obama administration worked to bring into a coalition. Here is a sampling of assessments prior to recent events. In September 2017, then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated that Iran is in ``technical compliance'' with the JCPOA. Second, in October 2017, then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis stated that Iran was ``fundamentally'' in compliance with the JCPOA. ``Overall our intelligence community believes that they have been compliant and the IAEA also says so,'' said General Mattis, then Secretary of Defense. In March 2018, IAEA Director Amano stated: ``Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitments. . . . If the JCPOA were to fail, it would be a great loss for nuclear verification and for multilateralism.'' Finally, No. 4, in January 2019, former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, a former Republican Senator from the State of Indiana, said: ``We continue to assess that Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons development activities we judge necessary to produce a nuclear device.'' Three of the four officials--Secretary of State Tillerson, Secretary of Defense Mattis, and Director of National Intelligence Coats--all three were appointed by President Trump. President Trump came into office determined to pull out of this agreement, despite the fact that it was working. He surrounded himself with advisers who supported a policy of regime change. Of course, the words ``regime change'' are words that they will not say out loud--the President or his administration--but that is the policy. The American people, after nearly two decades of conflict, know that regime-change policy is a march to war. This administration calls their regime change policy a ``maximum pressure campaign.'' Its stated goal was to force Iran to negotiate a new agreement that would include a host of other nonnuclear issues. Despite the stated goal, an examination of the methods used to achieve it make it obvious that the administration was engaged in a policy that would most likely lead to war instead of a new agreement. The administration pulled out of the nuclear agreement, which was working, and while it was in effect, it took the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran off the table. The administration reimposed sanctions which were lifted as part of the nuclear agreement. They engaged in a host of other activities that resulted in increased risks and moved us further away from a diplomatic resolution. The administration's regime change policy was supposed to deter the Iranian regime from threatening our Nation and its allies. This policy has not done that. This policy was supposed to bring Iran to the bargaining table. It has not. It was supposed to cajole Iran to behave like a ``normal nation.'' Once again, it has not. Tensions have increased. Threats to our servicemembers, our citizens, and allies have increased, not decreased. The region--the Middle East--is lessstable. Iran is closer--closer--to obtaining a nuclear weapon. The terrible results of this policy were predictable. The administration, including Secretary Pompeo and former National Security Advisor John Bolton, never had any intention of forging a new diplomatic agreement with Iran. All of this is how our Nation has found itself on the brink of war with Iran, facing the potential of another bloody conflict in the Middle East. Americans across our country are well aware of the events leading up to the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, the leader of Iran's Quds Force on January 2. Following the killing of an American contractor at a U.S. military compound in Kirkuk, Iraq, on December 27, the U.S. military retaliated with a strike against the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah terrorist group, killing at least 25 members of the militia and wounding others. In response, the Iranian Government orchestrated protests in Baghdad, which led hundreds of pro-Iranian protesters to storm the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad on New Year's Eve. The strike against the Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani followed. Soleimani was a military figure who inflicted terror and killed thousands in Israel, Iraq, and Syria as well. You can add other places to that. He killed thousands. He worked to prop up Bashar al-Assad in Syria. He aided Shiite forces that killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq. We have been told that he was behind the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad on New Year's Eve. Qasem Soleimani was directly responsible for the killing of hundreds of American soldiers and civilians and wounding many more. He was a despicable person who was the leader of an entity designated as a terrorist organization. Across the international stage, there are many committed enemies of America who plot every day to do our Nation and our allies harm--every single day. Those entrusted with the national security of our Nation have to assess whether taking direct action against one of those individual enemies increases or decreases risks over time and whether taking actions against those individuals is consistent with our values and our commitment to the rule of law. This is a high standard, and it should be. We are the United States of America, and we believe that conflicts have rules and limits. We strive for a higher standard that both honors our values and protects our security. Because we have high standards and because we expect our leaders to act prudently and with deliberation, the Constitution requires substantial consultation with Congress regarding matters of war except in limited, urgent circumstances. Acting with disregard for these standards, President Trump took this unilateral action. The President may have endangered the lives of U.S. servicemembers in the Middle East. He may have also prompted near-lethal retaliation from Iran. Iran's retaliatory strikes against U.S. bases at Al-Asad and Erbil on January 7 thankfully did not claim any American lives. However, conflicting reports continue to emerge about whether Iran intentionally avoided hitting U.S. personnel, and that raises questions about whether Iran sought to escalate or de-escalate its conflict with the United States. Video evidence has emerged in recent days showing that the Iranians actually decimated housing units for soldiers on the base. Without having received a classified briefing from the administration about this incident--as opposed to the briefing we had on the killing of Soleimani, which I will get to later--without having that classified briefing, we can rely upon press reports for some information. Press reports indicate that the Iranians were aiming to take American lives. The fallout from the Soleimani strike didn't end there. On January 8, the Iranian Government covered up the fact that it mistakenly shot down a civilian aircraft killing 176 people onboard. The Iranian people have since taken to the streets in protest of the coverup. I strongly condemn the Iranian Government's crackdown on protesters and support the Iranian people's right to rise up and demand human rights and democratic governance in their country. But let's not lose focus on a very important matter: President Trump ordered a targeted killing of a high-ranking military official of a country with which we are not in a declared or authorized conflict. This is a serious step which required both a rigorous examination as well as an explanation from the administration. Thus far, the explanations we have received from this administration have been woefully inadequate and inconsistent--and I think that is an understatement. We have been told that this strike was in response to an ``imminent threat'' that four U.S. Embassies abroad were being targeted, which Defense Secretary Esper almost immediately contradicted. The word ``imminence'' is important here. Imminence derives from the doctrine of self-defense, which under article 51 of the United Nations Charter and the broader ``laws of war,'' imminence justifies use of force in another state's territory when an armed attack occurs--occurs--or when an armed attack is imminent. Some national security scholars define ``imminence'' as ``leaving no reasonable time for nonforceful measures to obviate such a threat.'' I will speak for myself only, but this is true of a number of Senators, I believe. I have yet to see clear evidence that there was ``no reasonable time'' to seek nonlethal, diplomatic options prior to killing Soleimani. The administration has failed to disclose sufficient detail regarding the imminence of this threat. When asked on Friday, Secretary Pompeo said he did not know when this asserted imminent threat was supposed to take place. The American people have also heard from Secretary Pompeo and President Trump that the attack was a matter of retribution from events that occurred in the past. We have heard from Secretary Pompeo that this attack was designed to ``restore deterrence,'' but it is unclear that he coordinated with his national security colleagues across the interagency. We know from reporting from the New York Times that Secretary Pompeo was among the ``most hawkish voices arguing for a response to Iranian aggression.'' The article also goes on to say: ``Top Pentagon officials were stunned'' in reference to the strike. So the question of why this strike was launched and when it was launched remains unanswered. Both Democratic Senators and Republican Senators asked this question in a classified briefing last week and few received a satisfactory answer. We still lack answers on the ``imminent threat.'' The President has spent the last week at rallies and other appearances triumphantly marking the killing and indicating that the Iranian threat is behind us. The strike authorized by President Trump may have been reckless, taken without appropriate planning for the consequences and aftermath, and done without serious consultation with Congress and--and--within the administration. Contrary to the President's boast, I am gravely concerned we will feel the adverse consequences of this administration's actions across the Iran policy landscape for years to come. If we think the attacks on the Al-Asad and Kirkuk bases last Tuesday were the end of Iranian retaliation for Soleimani's death, we are likely mistaken, due to the continued threat of the Iranian regime's proxy forces throughout the Middle East. Let's examine the potential negative consequences of the strike. I hope this is something that the administration engaged in before the strike, but it is important to review this. On January 5, Iran announced that it is no longer bound by the restrictions of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as it relates to uranium enrichment. This agreement unequivocally extended Iran's breakout time, which is the time it would take to obtain enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb. The agreement extended the breakout time to 12 months--1 year. Again, before the agreement, Iran's breakout time was 2 to 3 months. So the agreement extended that time, meaning making the world safer by extending that time from 2 to 3 months to 1 year. That is where we were with the implementation of the agreement. Without this agreement--the JCPOA--without that agreement inplace, Iran could reach the requisite uranium stockpile in as little as 6 months, if not sooner. Iran is closer today to a nuclear weapon than it was a week or so ago, and certainly it is closer to a nuclear weapon since 2018, when the administration withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. That is one consequence we have to consider. Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon. No. 2 is ISIS. If the President's October 2019 withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria and the concurrent abandonment of our Kurdish allies--if that did not create space for the resurgence of ISIS in the Middle East, the President's recent action will almost certainly allow for ISIS to regain a foothold in the region. Just 3 days after the Soleimani strike, the New York Times reported that, and here is the headline, ``U.S.-Led Coalition Halts ISIS Fight as it Steels for Iranian Attacks''--halts ISIS fight. NATO has already suspended its operations against ISIS. We have to consider, how does that outcome make us safer? Next, No. 3, we have to consider what is happening in Iraq. Iraq voted to expel U.S. troops from their country as a result of the strike. If we fully withdraw from Iraq, where are we going to launch counter-ISIS operations in both Iraq and Syria from? How do we do that--from where? Where was the effort to work with the Iraqi Government in quashing Kataib Hezbollah and countering Iranian influence in Iraq? Now that the Iraqi Government opposes U.S. troop presence in its country, what is the plan? How does the administration plan to restart conversations with Iran to negotiate a ``better'' nuclear deal that will ensure Iran never has a nuclear bomb? How do they restart those negotiations? This strike looks more like another step forward in a policy of regime change rather than a coherent strategy designed to keep our Nation safe by using tough diplomacy and alliance-building to confront Iran. I have been one of the most determined advocates of being tough on Iran, especially regarding sanctions. Since I came to the Senate in 2007, I have been part of almost every sanctions push in efforts to so-call tighten the screws on the Iranian regime and hold them fully accountable for their actions. All those steps that I have been a part of, and people of both parties have been a part of, were part of a strategy to get the results we saw when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was signed. Now, 2 years and after one particularly dangerous week, President Trump has badly undermined all that progress. The advocates of regime change in Iran are closer than ever to getting the United States into a shooting war with Iran. The events of the last few weeks remind me of the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Across both the House and the Senate, Congress held only seven hearings that dealt directly with the proposed 2002 authorization for the use of military force to authorize the Iraq war. AUMF is the acronym for that. Are seven hearings, over a period of 3 weeks between the House and the Senate, sufficient discussion and debate prior to voting to go to war with Iraq? No. No, that is not sufficient time and not a sufficient number of hearings. At last count, 201 Pennsylvanians were killed in Iraq and over 1,200 were wounded. Have we learned from the mistakes of 2002 and 2003 that led to those deaths and all those Pennsylvanians being wounded and many thousands beyond that killed and wounded in the Iraq war? Have we learned? Have we learned those lessons yet? We have a duty--an abiding obligation--not to repeat the mistakes of the past and to constrain the actions of a President who may endanger the lives of U.S. servicemembers and Americans abroad. Before we get too far down this path, Congress must reassert its constitutional duty to debate and authorize war. Prior to authorizing a strike, we must assess--and I hope the administration did this--whether such an action would have an adverse impact on our national security. Before we march our sons and daughters off to fight another war, we need to make sure we are doing everything possible to prevent the loss of American lives. I have been clear in opposing a direct confrontation with Iran without--without a clear authorization from Congress. The Trump administration acted without a congressionally approved authorization for the use of military force last week. That is why I and many others have cosponsored Senator Tim Kaine's bipartisan S.J. Res. 68 to prevent the President from going to war with Iran without congressional authorization. If you want to go to war with Iran, you ought to be compelled to vote for it, up or down--vote for or against as a Member of Congress. Specifically, this resolution, S.J. Res. 68, requires the President to ``terminate the use of the United States Armed Forces for hostilities against the Islamic Republican of Iran or any part of its government or military unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or a specific authorization for the use of military force'' as enacted by Congress. Nothing in this resolution prevents the United States from ``defending itself against imminent attack.'' Those are the exact words. It is authorization or declaration before you go to war with Iran. I think a lot of Americans--most Americans--believe that is not just the right thing to do but that is our duty, no matter who is President. When the administration fails to brief Congress on threats we face and concurrently takes unilateral actions that could lead to all-out war, we must act quickly and decisively to prevent further escalation and demand a strategy. We owe it to Pennsylvanians, and we owe it to all Americans, especially our men and women in uniform and their families, to engage in a substantial, robust public debate on what engaging in hostilities with Iran would mean for U.S. national security and how it could endanger American lives. The House vote of last Thursday was to reassert this congressional authority, and the Senate will vote this week. I urge a vote in support of S.J. Res. 68, which has several bipartisan cosponsors. This is a dark time, and I cannot overstate my level of concern. I know that concern is shared widely here in Congress but also across the country. As to Iran, we are headed down a path to war, one which could be more bloody, more complicated, and more protracted than any in my lifetime. We have been walking down this path since President Trump pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Every week since, we are a little closer to an armed conflict, and the events of these past weeks have likely turbocharged the dangerous path we are on. Going back to the time of the Vietnam war and thereafter, elected leaders of both political parties have lied to the American people. The American people were told we were making progress, when we weren't. The American people were told that insurgencies were in their ``last throes,'' when the opposite was true. The American people demand that politicians don't make serious mistakes that lead to war. The good news is, we still have time. We have time to get it right. We have time to engage in hard-nosed diplomacy. We have time to reject a policy of regime change regarding Iran. There is time for this administration to outline and implement an effective Iran strategy that substantially reduces the likelihood of war in a nuclear-armed Iran, but time is running short. The administration may be committed to a policy of regime change, but the Senate can act. We can pass the bipartisan S.J. Res. 68 and other measures to make sure this administration cannot take us recklessly to war with Iran without congressional authorization or a declaration of war. We owe it to the American people and to our servicemembers to do this. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

2020-01-06

Mr. CASEY

Senate

CREC-2020-01-15-pt1-PgS217

formal

single

homophobic

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss U.S. policy regarding Iran. We know that in 2009 the new Obama administration came into office at a time when the Iranian regime was racing to develop a nuclear weapon. The prospect of the Iranian regime with a nuclear weapon would present a substantial threat to America and to our allies. At the same time, Iran was engaged in a host of other malign activities, but the most urgent and significant threat was nuclear. In 2013, Iran was 2 to 3 months from being able to build a nuclear weapon. The Obama administration decided to use hard-nosed diplomacy resulting in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, known by the acronym JCPOA. This agreement was entered into with a number of countries, three of them our allies--the United Kingdom, France and Germany. We also had two partner countries--countries with which we have a lot of tensions and conflict. We were partners with China and Russia. So this agreement stretched from one end of the world to the other. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action prevented Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon by, among other steps, authorizing some of the most intrusive inspections that have ever been put into place. This agreement, the JCPOA, did not cover several other nonnuclear malign activities that the Iranian regime was and is engaged in. The JCPOA isolated and largely solved the most dire threat, that of a nuclear-armed Iran in the near future. This agreement, from its signing in 2015 through 2018, worked. Until recently, Iran was complying with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. That is the considered judgment of the International Atomic Energy Agency, known as IAEA. The considered judgment of the U.S. intelligence community was that Iran was complying with the agreement. It was also the judgment made by the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of Defense in both the Obama administration and the Trump administration. The determination that Iran was complying with the agreement is also the assessment of our allies and partners with whom the Obama administration worked to bring into a coalition. Here is a sampling of assessments prior to recent events. In September 2017, then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated that Iran is in ``technical compliance'' with the JCPOA. Second, in October 2017, then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis stated that Iran was ``fundamentally'' in compliance with the JCPOA. ``Overall our intelligence community believes that they have been compliant and the IAEA also says so,'' said General Mattis, then Secretary of Defense. In March 2018, IAEA Director Amano stated: ``Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitments. . . . If the JCPOA were to fail, it would be a great loss for nuclear verification and for multilateralism.'' Finally, No. 4, in January 2019, former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, a former Republican Senator from the State of Indiana, said: ``We continue to assess that Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons development activities we judge necessary to produce a nuclear device.'' Three of the four officials--Secretary of State Tillerson, Secretary of Defense Mattis, and Director of National Intelligence Coats--all three were appointed by President Trump. President Trump came into office determined to pull out of this agreement, despite the fact that it was working. He surrounded himself with advisers who supported a policy of regime change. Of course, the words ``regime change'' are words that they will not say out loud--the President or his administration--but that is the policy. The American people, after nearly two decades of conflict, know that regime-change policy is a march to war. This administration calls their regime change policy a ``maximum pressure campaign.'' Its stated goal was to force Iran to negotiate a new agreement that would include a host of other nonnuclear issues. Despite the stated goal, an examination of the methods used to achieve it make it obvious that the administration was engaged in a policy that would most likely lead to war instead of a new agreement. The administration pulled out of the nuclear agreement, which was working, and while it was in effect, it took the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran off the table. The administration reimposed sanctions which were lifted as part of the nuclear agreement. They engaged in a host of other activities that resulted in increased risks and moved us further away from a diplomatic resolution. The administration's regime change policy was supposed to deter the Iranian regime from threatening our Nation and its allies. This policy has not done that. This policy was supposed to bring Iran to the bargaining table. It has not. It was supposed to cajole Iran to behave like a ``normal nation.'' Once again, it has not. Tensions have increased. Threats to our servicemembers, our citizens, and allies have increased, not decreased. The region--the Middle East--is lessstable. Iran is closer--closer--to obtaining a nuclear weapon. The terrible results of this policy were predictable. The administration, including Secretary Pompeo and former National Security Advisor John Bolton, never had any intention of forging a new diplomatic agreement with Iran. All of this is how our Nation has found itself on the brink of war with Iran, facing the potential of another bloody conflict in the Middle East. Americans across our country are well aware of the events leading up to the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, the leader of Iran's Quds Force on January 2. Following the killing of an American contractor at a U.S. military compound in Kirkuk, Iraq, on December 27, the U.S. military retaliated with a strike against the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah terrorist group, killing at least 25 members of the militia and wounding others. In response, the Iranian Government orchestrated protests in Baghdad, which led hundreds of pro-Iranian protesters to storm the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad on New Year's Eve. The strike against the Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani followed. Soleimani was a military figure who inflicted terror and killed thousands in Israel, Iraq, and Syria as well. You can add other places to that. He killed thousands. He worked to prop up Bashar al-Assad in Syria. He aided Shiite forces that killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq. We have been told that he was behind the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad on New Year's Eve. Qasem Soleimani was directly responsible for the killing of hundreds of American soldiers and civilians and wounding many more. He was a despicable person who was the leader of an entity designated as a terrorist organization. Across the international stage, there are many committed enemies of America who plot every day to do our Nation and our allies harm--every single day. Those entrusted with the national security of our Nation have to assess whether taking direct action against one of those individual enemies increases or decreases risks over time and whether taking actions against those individuals is consistent with our values and our commitment to the rule of law. This is a high standard, and it should be. We are the United States of America, and we believe that conflicts have rules and limits. We strive for a higher standard that both honors our values and protects our security. Because we have high standards and because we expect our leaders to act prudently and with deliberation, the Constitution requires substantial consultation with Congress regarding matters of war except in limited, urgent circumstances. Acting with disregard for these standards, President Trump took this unilateral action. The President may have endangered the lives of U.S. servicemembers in the Middle East. He may have also prompted near-lethal retaliation from Iran. Iran's retaliatory strikes against U.S. bases at Al-Asad and Erbil on January 7 thankfully did not claim any American lives. However, conflicting reports continue to emerge about whether Iran intentionally avoided hitting U.S. personnel, and that raises questions about whether Iran sought to escalate or de-escalate its conflict with the United States. Video evidence has emerged in recent days showing that the Iranians actually decimated housing units for soldiers on the base. Without having received a classified briefing from the administration about this incident--as opposed to the briefing we had on the killing of Soleimani, which I will get to later--without having that classified briefing, we can rely upon press reports for some information. Press reports indicate that the Iranians were aiming to take American lives. The fallout from the Soleimani strike didn't end there. On January 8, the Iranian Government covered up the fact that it mistakenly shot down a civilian aircraft killing 176 people onboard. The Iranian people have since taken to the streets in protest of the coverup. I strongly condemn the Iranian Government's crackdown on protesters and support the Iranian people's right to rise up and demand human rights and democratic governance in their country. But let's not lose focus on a very important matter: President Trump ordered a targeted killing of a high-ranking military official of a country with which we are not in a declared or authorized conflict. This is a serious step which required both a rigorous examination as well as an explanation from the administration. Thus far, the explanations we have received from this administration have been woefully inadequate and inconsistent--and I think that is an understatement. We have been told that this strike was in response to an ``imminent threat'' that four U.S. Embassies abroad were being targeted, which Defense Secretary Esper almost immediately contradicted. The word ``imminence'' is important here. Imminence derives from the doctrine of self-defense, which under article 51 of the United Nations Charter and the broader ``laws of war,'' imminence justifies use of force in another state's territory when an armed attack occurs--occurs--or when an armed attack is imminent. Some national security scholars define ``imminence'' as ``leaving no reasonable time for nonforceful measures to obviate such a threat.'' I will speak for myself only, but this is true of a number of Senators, I believe. I have yet to see clear evidence that there was ``no reasonable time'' to seek nonlethal, diplomatic options prior to killing Soleimani. The administration has failed to disclose sufficient detail regarding the imminence of this threat. When asked on Friday, Secretary Pompeo said he did not know when this asserted imminent threat was supposed to take place. The American people have also heard from Secretary Pompeo and President Trump that the attack was a matter of retribution from events that occurred in the past. We have heard from Secretary Pompeo that this attack was designed to ``restore deterrence,'' but it is unclear that he coordinated with his national security colleagues across the interagency. We know from reporting from the New York Times that Secretary Pompeo was among the ``most hawkish voices arguing for a response to Iranian aggression.'' The article also goes on to say: ``Top Pentagon officials were stunned'' in reference to the strike. So the question of why this strike was launched and when it was launched remains unanswered. Both Democratic Senators and Republican Senators asked this question in a classified briefing last week and few received a satisfactory answer. We still lack answers on the ``imminent threat.'' The President has spent the last week at rallies and other appearances triumphantly marking the killing and indicating that the Iranian threat is behind us. The strike authorized by President Trump may have been reckless, taken without appropriate planning for the consequences and aftermath, and done without serious consultation with Congress and--and--within the administration. Contrary to the President's boast, I am gravely concerned we will feel the adverse consequences of this administration's actions across the Iran policy landscape for years to come. If we think the attacks on the Al-Asad and Kirkuk bases last Tuesday were the end of Iranian retaliation for Soleimani's death, we are likely mistaken, due to the continued threat of the Iranian regime's proxy forces throughout the Middle East. Let's examine the potential negative consequences of the strike. I hope this is something that the administration engaged in before the strike, but it is important to review this. On January 5, Iran announced that it is no longer bound by the restrictions of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as it relates to uranium enrichment. This agreement unequivocally extended Iran's breakout time, which is the time it would take to obtain enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb. The agreement extended the breakout time to 12 months--1 year. Again, before the agreement, Iran's breakout time was 2 to 3 months. So the agreement extended that time, meaning making the world safer by extending that time from 2 to 3 months to 1 year. That is where we were with the implementation of the agreement. Without this agreement--the JCPOA--without that agreement inplace, Iran could reach the requisite uranium stockpile in as little as 6 months, if not sooner. Iran is closer today to a nuclear weapon than it was a week or so ago, and certainly it is closer to a nuclear weapon since 2018, when the administration withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. That is one consequence we have to consider. Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon. No. 2 is ISIS. If the President's October 2019 withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria and the concurrent abandonment of our Kurdish allies--if that did not create space for the resurgence of ISIS in the Middle East, the President's recent action will almost certainly allow for ISIS to regain a foothold in the region. Just 3 days after the Soleimani strike, the New York Times reported that, and here is the headline, ``U.S.-Led Coalition Halts ISIS Fight as it Steels for Iranian Attacks''--halts ISIS fight. NATO has already suspended its operations against ISIS. We have to consider, how does that outcome make us safer? Next, No. 3, we have to consider what is happening in Iraq. Iraq voted to expel U.S. troops from their country as a result of the strike. If we fully withdraw from Iraq, where are we going to launch counter-ISIS operations in both Iraq and Syria from? How do we do that--from where? Where was the effort to work with the Iraqi Government in quashing Kataib Hezbollah and countering Iranian influence in Iraq? Now that the Iraqi Government opposes U.S. troop presence in its country, what is the plan? How does the administration plan to restart conversations with Iran to negotiate a ``better'' nuclear deal that will ensure Iran never has a nuclear bomb? How do they restart those negotiations? This strike looks more like another step forward in a policy of regime change rather than a coherent strategy designed to keep our Nation safe by using tough diplomacy and alliance-building to confront Iran. I have been one of the most determined advocates of being tough on Iran, especially regarding sanctions. Since I came to the Senate in 2007, I have been part of almost every sanctions push in efforts to so-call tighten the screws on the Iranian regime and hold them fully accountable for their actions. All those steps that I have been a part of, and people of both parties have been a part of, were part of a strategy to get the results we saw when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was signed. Now, 2 years and after one particularly dangerous week, President Trump has badly undermined all that progress. The advocates of regime change in Iran are closer than ever to getting the United States into a shooting war with Iran. The events of the last few weeks remind me of the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Across both the House and the Senate, Congress held only seven hearings that dealt directly with the proposed 2002 authorization for the use of military force to authorize the Iraq war. AUMF is the acronym for that. Are seven hearings, over a period of 3 weeks between the House and the Senate, sufficient discussion and debate prior to voting to go to war with Iraq? No. No, that is not sufficient time and not a sufficient number of hearings. At last count, 201 Pennsylvanians were killed in Iraq and over 1,200 were wounded. Have we learned from the mistakes of 2002 and 2003 that led to those deaths and all those Pennsylvanians being wounded and many thousands beyond that killed and wounded in the Iraq war? Have we learned? Have we learned those lessons yet? We have a duty--an abiding obligation--not to repeat the mistakes of the past and to constrain the actions of a President who may endanger the lives of U.S. servicemembers and Americans abroad. Before we get too far down this path, Congress must reassert its constitutional duty to debate and authorize war. Prior to authorizing a strike, we must assess--and I hope the administration did this--whether such an action would have an adverse impact on our national security. Before we march our sons and daughters off to fight another war, we need to make sure we are doing everything possible to prevent the loss of American lives. I have been clear in opposing a direct confrontation with Iran without--without a clear authorization from Congress. The Trump administration acted without a congressionally approved authorization for the use of military force last week. That is why I and many others have cosponsored Senator Tim Kaine's bipartisan S.J. Res. 68 to prevent the President from going to war with Iran without congressional authorization. If you want to go to war with Iran, you ought to be compelled to vote for it, up or down--vote for or against as a Member of Congress. Specifically, this resolution, S.J. Res. 68, requires the President to ``terminate the use of the United States Armed Forces for hostilities against the Islamic Republican of Iran or any part of its government or military unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or a specific authorization for the use of military force'' as enacted by Congress. Nothing in this resolution prevents the United States from ``defending itself against imminent attack.'' Those are the exact words. It is authorization or declaration before you go to war with Iran. I think a lot of Americans--most Americans--believe that is not just the right thing to do but that is our duty, no matter who is President. When the administration fails to brief Congress on threats we face and concurrently takes unilateral actions that could lead to all-out war, we must act quickly and decisively to prevent further escalation and demand a strategy. We owe it to Pennsylvanians, and we owe it to all Americans, especially our men and women in uniform and their families, to engage in a substantial, robust public debate on what engaging in hostilities with Iran would mean for U.S. national security and how it could endanger American lives. The House vote of last Thursday was to reassert this congressional authority, and the Senate will vote this week. I urge a vote in support of S.J. Res. 68, which has several bipartisan cosponsors. This is a dark time, and I cannot overstate my level of concern. I know that concern is shared widely here in Congress but also across the country. As to Iran, we are headed down a path to war, one which could be more bloody, more complicated, and more protracted than any in my lifetime. We have been walking down this path since President Trump pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Every week since, we are a little closer to an armed conflict, and the events of these past weeks have likely turbocharged the dangerous path we are on. Going back to the time of the Vietnam war and thereafter, elected leaders of both political parties have lied to the American people. The American people were told we were making progress, when we weren't. The American people were told that insurgencies were in their ``last throes,'' when the opposite was true. The American people demand that politicians don't make serious mistakes that lead to war. The good news is, we still have time. We have time to get it right. We have time to engage in hard-nosed diplomacy. We have time to reject a policy of regime change regarding Iran. There is time for this administration to outline and implement an effective Iran strategy that substantially reduces the likelihood of war in a nuclear-armed Iran, but time is running short. The administration may be committed to a policy of regime change, but the Senate can act. We can pass the bipartisan S.J. Res. 68 and other measures to make sure this administration cannot take us recklessly to war with Iran without congressional authorization or a declaration of war. We owe it to the American people and to our servicemembers to do this. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

2020-01-06

Mr. CASEY

Senate

CREC-2020-01-15-pt1-PgS217

formal

based

white supremacist

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Coast Guard men and women who serve in Kodiak, AK, a designated Coast Guard City. On February 7, Kodiak's Chamber of Commerce will hold a community-wide celebration called ``We Applaud You.'' I want to take a moment to join in applauding the Coast Guard as a whole and all the Coast Guard personnel serving in Alaska, but especially those based in Kodiak who help make our great State a safe place to live and work. Kodiak is a robust Coast Guard City: it is homeport for three cutters, fifteen aircraft, a communications detachment, the North Pacific Regional Fisheries Training Center, the Aids to Navigation Team, and of course, Base Kodiak. Each of these components serve and protect Alaskans on a daily basis, and I would like to highlight some particularly important examples of their contributions and service to Alaska. Personnel from the Marine Safety Detachment in Kodiak helped oversee and coordinate multiple pollution responses on Kodiak Island last year, including responding to a diesel spill in the Buskin River, and a separate spill of Fuel Oil at Kitoi Bay Hatchery. The Marine Safety Detachment's prompt actions and clean-up expertise helped keep the island of Kodiak's rivers and coastline beautiful and safe. My sincere thanks to Marine Safety Detachment Kodiak. On New Year's Eve, the search and rescue team, including Air Station Kodiak and the Coast Guard Cutter Mellon responded to a sinking fishing vessel, the F/V Scandies Rose. The crews faced 40-knot winds, 15-30 foot seas and significantly reduced visibility at the scene of the sinking. The search and rescue team successfully recovered two survivors from a life raft but the five remaining crew members were lost. My heart goes out to the families and friends of those lost at sea. The crew of the Scandies Rose is in my prayers; this accident has hit especially close to home for Kodiak, which is a tight-knit fishing community, as well as a Coast Guard City. As we mourn the loss of the Scandies Rose, we are incredibly grateful for the efforts of the Coast Guard to rescue the survivors in the face of extremely dangerous conditions. We see these type of heroic actions in movies, but the Coast Guard in Alaska operates in dangerous, life-threatening conditions every day in order to keep Alaskans safe. To the entire search and rescue team, we applaud you, and Alaska thanks you. Now, I also want to sincerely thank Base Kodiak, the home of ``Rock Solid Support.'' Your work behind the scenes provides the foundation for all of the ready and responsive work done by those on the front lines. You truly are the rock solid support that keeps things moving, whether it is the medical and dental clinics keeping over a thousand people healthy; the Morale Welfare and Recreation team keeping the crew happy and energized--and in shape--the personnel support staff who recently completed a 5-year effort to increase salaries and close a long overdue pay gap for wage grade members across Alaska; or the facilities engineering department, who have improved living conditions for Kodiak's most junior Coast Guard members by converting housing units to allow two single members to share them. It is so important to me that our junior Coast Guard men and women are able to enjoy improved housing arrangements while away from home, maybe for the first time. Maybe they will be so comfortable in Kodiak that they want to come back to Alaska and call it home. I applaud all 450 personnel of Base Kodiak who keep the Coast Guard operations going. Finally, I want to take a minute to speak to the contributions and sacrifice of our Coast Guard families, partners, and spouses. So much of the demanding work that our Coast Guardmen and women do each day is made possible by the love and support of their families. This is especially true when additional burdens are placed on Coast Guard personnel, like we experienced this time last year, when the Coast Guard was left unpaid during the 35-day government shutdown. Here in Congress, I will continue to work with Senator Sullivan to pass the Pay Our Coast Guard Act, which will ensure that a lapse in pay from a government shutdown never happens again. Our Coast Guard families deserve nothing less. Thank you to the Kodiak Chamber of Commerce for their work to honor our Coast Guard members in Alaska. I applaud you as well for your support for those who serve and for taking the time to say thank you and well done to our Coast Guard Family.

2020-01-06

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Senate

CREC-2020-01-15-pt1-PgS240-2

formal

single

homophobic

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Coast Guard men and women who serve in Kodiak, AK, a designated Coast Guard City. On February 7, Kodiak's Chamber of Commerce will hold a community-wide celebration called ``We Applaud You.'' I want to take a moment to join in applauding the Coast Guard as a whole and all the Coast Guard personnel serving in Alaska, but especially those based in Kodiak who help make our great State a safe place to live and work. Kodiak is a robust Coast Guard City: it is homeport for three cutters, fifteen aircraft, a communications detachment, the North Pacific Regional Fisheries Training Center, the Aids to Navigation Team, and of course, Base Kodiak. Each of these components serve and protect Alaskans on a daily basis, and I would like to highlight some particularly important examples of their contributions and service to Alaska. Personnel from the Marine Safety Detachment in Kodiak helped oversee and coordinate multiple pollution responses on Kodiak Island last year, including responding to a diesel spill in the Buskin River, and a separate spill of Fuel Oil at Kitoi Bay Hatchery. The Marine Safety Detachment's prompt actions and clean-up expertise helped keep the island of Kodiak's rivers and coastline beautiful and safe. My sincere thanks to Marine Safety Detachment Kodiak. On New Year's Eve, the search and rescue team, including Air Station Kodiak and the Coast Guard Cutter Mellon responded to a sinking fishing vessel, the F/V Scandies Rose. The crews faced 40-knot winds, 15-30 foot seas and significantly reduced visibility at the scene of the sinking. The search and rescue team successfully recovered two survivors from a life raft but the five remaining crew members were lost. My heart goes out to the families and friends of those lost at sea. The crew of the Scandies Rose is in my prayers; this accident has hit especially close to home for Kodiak, which is a tight-knit fishing community, as well as a Coast Guard City. As we mourn the loss of the Scandies Rose, we are incredibly grateful for the efforts of the Coast Guard to rescue the survivors in the face of extremely dangerous conditions. We see these type of heroic actions in movies, but the Coast Guard in Alaska operates in dangerous, life-threatening conditions every day in order to keep Alaskans safe. To the entire search and rescue team, we applaud you, and Alaska thanks you. Now, I also want to sincerely thank Base Kodiak, the home of ``Rock Solid Support.'' Your work behind the scenes provides the foundation for all of the ready and responsive work done by those on the front lines. You truly are the rock solid support that keeps things moving, whether it is the medical and dental clinics keeping over a thousand people healthy; the Morale Welfare and Recreation team keeping the crew happy and energized--and in shape--the personnel support staff who recently completed a 5-year effort to increase salaries and close a long overdue pay gap for wage grade members across Alaska; or the facilities engineering department, who have improved living conditions for Kodiak's most junior Coast Guard members by converting housing units to allow two single members to share them. It is so important to me that our junior Coast Guard men and women are able to enjoy improved housing arrangements while away from home, maybe for the first time. Maybe they will be so comfortable in Kodiak that they want to come back to Alaska and call it home. I applaud all 450 personnel of Base Kodiak who keep the Coast Guard operations going. Finally, I want to take a minute to speak to the contributions and sacrifice of our Coast Guard families, partners, and spouses. So much of the demanding work that our Coast Guardmen and women do each day is made possible by the love and support of their families. This is especially true when additional burdens are placed on Coast Guard personnel, like we experienced this time last year, when the Coast Guard was left unpaid during the 35-day government shutdown. Here in Congress, I will continue to work with Senator Sullivan to pass the Pay Our Coast Guard Act, which will ensure that a lapse in pay from a government shutdown never happens again. Our Coast Guard families deserve nothing less. Thank you to the Kodiak Chamber of Commerce for their work to honor our Coast Guard members in Alaska. I applaud you as well for your support for those who serve and for taking the time to say thank you and well done to our Coast Guard Family.

2020-01-06

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Senate

CREC-2020-01-15-pt1-PgS240-2

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 11, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Peter Gaynor, to be Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 12, confirmation of Peter Gaynor, to be Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

2020-01-06

Mr. MARKEY

Senate

CREC-2020-01-15-pt1-PgS240

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

At 11:15 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 629(b), and the order of the House of January 3, 2019, the Speaker appoints the following individuals to the Board of the Federal Judicial Center Foundation on the part of the House of Representatives for a term of 5 years: Ms. Elizabeth J. Cabraser of Sebastopol, California and Mr. Peter A. Kraus of Dallas, Texas.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-01-15-pt1-PgS242

formal

XX

transphobic

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, which the Chair will put de novo. The question is on the Speaker's approval of the Journal. Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

2020-01-06

The SPEAKER pro tempore

House

CREC-2020-01-16-pt1-PgH315

formal

terrorist

Islamophobic

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today is a very important day that we recognize once a year--National Religious Freedom Day. It is a day when we celebrate America's longstanding commitment to religious freedom. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects that right for Americans. Unfortunately, this fundamental right we have great respect for in the United States is under attack internationally in many autocratic countries. Around the world, people are being persecuted for their faith by authoritarian dictatorships and terrorist groups. Countries like China, North Korea, and Russia restrict their citizens' rights to practice their own religion. China, for example, plans to enforce additional restrictions on religious groups starting February 1. That is already on top of a very bad record they have for religious freedom. That is in regard to China, but it would apply to all countries. I have legislation to require the United States to work to block World Bank projects in wealthy countries like China and Russia that abuse religious freedoms. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

2020-01-06

Mr. GRASSLEY

Senate

CREC-2020-01-16-pt1-PgS255-4

formal

religious freedom

homophobic

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today is a very important day that we recognize once a year--National Religious Freedom Day. It is a day when we celebrate America's longstanding commitment to religious freedom. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects that right for Americans. Unfortunately, this fundamental right we have great respect for in the United States is under attack internationally in many autocratic countries. Around the world, people are being persecuted for their faith by authoritarian dictatorships and terrorist groups. Countries like China, North Korea, and Russia restrict their citizens' rights to practice their own religion. China, for example, plans to enforce additional restrictions on religious groups starting February 1. That is already on top of a very bad record they have for religious freedom. That is in regard to China, but it would apply to all countries. I have legislation to require the United States to work to block World Bank projects in wealthy countries like China and Russia that abuse religious freedoms. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

2020-01-06

Mr. GRASSLEY

Senate

CREC-2020-01-16-pt1-PgS255-4

formal

based

white supremacist

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, trade with Canada and Mexico is vitally important to Maine's economy, supporting numerous small businesses and more than 53,000 jobs in our State. In reviewing the text of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the replacement for the deeply flawed NAFTA, my paramount concern was ensuring that Maine workers will be protected. After careful assessment of the benefits USMCA will have for those employed in Maine's manufacturing industry, agriculture sector, and small businesses, I will vote in support of the USMCA. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, USMCA is projected to have a positive impact on all broad industry sectors, increasing employment by 176,000 jobs and increasing real GDP by $68.2 billion. This agreement also makes important improvements to labor and environmental standards and brings these issues into the core of the agreement. This is a step in the right direction for modernizing trade agreements. Dana Connors, president & CEO of the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, said: Our border countries are important trade partners for Maine businesses, in fact, trade with our friends to the north is vital to many Maine businesses on a daily basis. The Maine State Chamber of Commerce thanks Senator Collins for her support of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). The USMCA's passage is vital for Maine businesses, will restore trade uncertainty and help our economy to continue to thrive. One out of five Maine manufacturing firms exports to Canada and Mexico, and the majority of these are small- and medium-sized companies. Without tariff-free trade, Maine's manufactured goods exported to Canada and Mexico could face $6.3 million to $26 million in additional tariffs, jeopardizing Maine jobs. Companies like New Balance, which employs hundreds of Mainers at its facilities in Norridgewock, Norway, and Skowhegan, and Texas Instruments in South Portland, depend on a stable North American supply chain. Amy Dow, director of public relations and government relations for New Balance, said: On behalf of our company's Maine associates, New Balance supports the passage of the USMCA that will enable the continued success and future growth of our three manufacturing facilities in Maine. Senator Collins' support and leadership on this trade agreement has been vital to ensure that our factories can continue to produce thousands of pairs of shoes annually for export to the Canadian market. Stephen Bonner, Texas Instruments vice president for worldwide government relations, said: Texas Instruments is a long-time supporter of predictable, open-market based trade policies. We're pleased that the new USMCA includes strong digital trade and intellectual property provisions to adapt the agreement to the 21st century economy, and support its passage. Our agricultural producers also rely on a stable and predictable trading environment. U.S. agricultural exports to Canada and Mexico more than quadrupled between 1993 and 2017. In Maine, I have heard from producers in the dairy, potato, and wild blueberry industries who have shared their support for free and fair trade agreements. Maine has a special relationship with Canada in particular, given our shared border. While there remain frictions with Canada, including fishing rights, right whale regulations, and softwood lumber issues, Canada is our largest trading partner and has consistently been our top U.S. export market. As a native of Aroostook County, I know how many of our border communities are truly intertwined, with people and goods traveling back and forth daily. In 2019, Maine and Canada traded an average of $350 million in goods per month. Ambassador Robert Lighthizer deserves recognition for his tremendous work on this agreement. It is impressive to see a trade agreement receive such strong bipartisan support. Vote on Motion to Waive

2020-01-06

Ms. COLLINS

Senate

CREC-2020-01-16-pt1-PgS265

formal

Google

racist

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Chris Allen, who worked as my senior economic policy adviser. It is fitting that I do so on the Senate floor because Chris Allen would be the first one to tell you he loved his job. This statement was delivered so frequently and with such sincerity that one was compelled to look inward and remind one's self of what a privilege it is to work in the U.S. Senate on behalf of the American people. Chris Allen was a student of history and a lover of politics. Ladies and gentlemen, Chris Allen loved tax policy. If that doesn't tell you what a special person he was, I don't know what does. Chris's attitude about his job extended to his coworkers. He loved his coworkers. When he was on my staff, Chris was always willing to help junior staff, senior staff, or interns. It didn't matter--he had time for you. He rolled up his sleeves and pitched in. He gave you advice. He truly cared. When it came time for my 2014 campaign, Chris spent his vacation days with me in Kansas--knocking on doors, walking in parades, and being a force of positive energy no matter what we faced. Normally these are grueling tasks but not for Chris. He had fun. He loved it. As a matter of fact, posted on the wall of our little Hart kitchen, we have a selfie on election night of my crew at the victory party. The picture is entitled ``This is what victory looks like.'' And right smack-dab in the middle is one smiling Chris Allen. Now, when I am heating up my coffee, I look at Chris in the picture, and I can feel his joy as he is surrounded by our family of staffers. Elections weren't his only love. Chris Allen loved a cold beer. He loved a natty jacket. He loved loud pants. Sometimes he loved wearing them together. He loved his lacrosse. He loved his Baltimore neighborhood. He loved all things English and French. He loved researching his ancestry. Chris Allen loved his parents, his in-laws, his brothers, his nieces and nephews, but nothing compared to his love for Lynda, Lucie, and Sophie. He was not just a proud dad who boasted of his daughters' accomplishments big and small; he was better. He was a father who took delight in the things his daughters said and did, big and small. They were cherished. May they understand today and always that we loved Chris, and he loved them. I always looked forward to my briefings with Chris. For one, he got my jokes. He understood my references to radio and television shows and personalities that my other staff would have to research and look up. But he was also understanding of the history of the issues, even those not in his portfolio. He was an excellent steward of my priorities on the Finance Committee, so much so they stole him from me. At the time I told him, ``Listen, you still work for me, you are just sitting down the hall.'' To illustrate Chris' popularity, I would like to share this story. There is an annual, all-day legislative meeting held in Washington for a Kansas group that requires a lot of preparation. My staff must be able to speak about a variety of topics and difficult issues before an audience of at least 100 Kansans. At one of these such meetings, Chris had just left my office to work at tax nerd nirvana, the Senate Finance Committee. I called him back to answer a few tax questions while my new staffer transitioned into the role. Before Chris was scheduled to arrive, a number of questions about taxes came up and my staff deferred to him, mentioning they would wait for the ``real tax guy'' to show up. Their repeated deference to him built up a feeling of anticipation in the room. At long last, Chris strolls in, and heads swivel around to the back of the room to see the great tax man cometh. It was like Elvis had entered the building. The audience got to their feet and gave him a standing ovation. One man was even moved to testify how Chris had helped his community on a rural tax issue and it had made all of the difference. And at the front of the room on the panel, there sat Chris in his dapper jacket, his head tilted back and his beaming smile. He loved to help and they loved him. Whether it was the tax reform bill or pension legislation, Chris' brilliant mind made the measure better--every time. And his work will have a long lasting influence on our Nation and literally millions of Americans. What a career Chris Allen had. Everyone in this room will probably agree that Chris's best stories were about himself, and he was usually his own punchline. Something had happened to him. He had messed something up, or he had gleefully embarrassed his daughters. You can hear him now. I was a bit player in one of his favorite tales. It was his first Finance Committee hearing working for me. Chris had prepped for days--weeks probably. He was both nervous and excited. As we walked over to the committee room, he told me he was calling Lynda, hoping she could watch the hearing on CSPAN and catch him sitting behind the dais. So I decided to have a little fun with Chris. As the time for questions got to the Senator next to me, I very dramatically motioned to Chris. Chris looked shocked--I am sure he was thinking, ``Oh no, what could I have forgotten to tell him.'' Chris leaned in, and I put my hand to the side of my mouth: ``Chris, this is your moment. Look very serious. Nod your head a few times. Now point at the paper I am holding--now tell me something very crucial . . . we are going to make sure Lynda sees you!'' Chris got the biggest kick out of it, and we met the goal--he was on CSPAN. So while we take the issues and the policy very seriously, and we negotiate very intensely--and Chris could sure do that--we can also stop for a minute to appreciate where we are and what a privilege it is to do these jobs. As I said, Chris never forgot or took it for granted. He appreciated every minute in the Senate. I understand Lucie has shared a link to a Google doc for Chris's friends and loved ones to share their ``short but interesting stories about Chris.'' I encourage everyone to do so. These stories will be a treasure trove for Lynda, Sophie, and Lucie. I hope you can preserve them in some way with his genealogy work. I know he would like that. I will conclude with a note to Lynda and the girls: I always say you are only as good as your staff; it is your friends and family who make you what you are. In my office, staff are family. Chris was family; you will always be family. Besides, Chris still works for me. He is just sitting and smiling a few floors up.

2020-01-06

Mr. ROBERTS

Senate

CREC-2020-01-16-pt1-PgS272-2

formal

Baltimore

racist

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Chris Allen, who worked as my senior economic policy adviser. It is fitting that I do so on the Senate floor because Chris Allen would be the first one to tell you he loved his job. This statement was delivered so frequently and with such sincerity that one was compelled to look inward and remind one's self of what a privilege it is to work in the U.S. Senate on behalf of the American people. Chris Allen was a student of history and a lover of politics. Ladies and gentlemen, Chris Allen loved tax policy. If that doesn't tell you what a special person he was, I don't know what does. Chris's attitude about his job extended to his coworkers. He loved his coworkers. When he was on my staff, Chris was always willing to help junior staff, senior staff, or interns. It didn't matter--he had time for you. He rolled up his sleeves and pitched in. He gave you advice. He truly cared. When it came time for my 2014 campaign, Chris spent his vacation days with me in Kansas--knocking on doors, walking in parades, and being a force of positive energy no matter what we faced. Normally these are grueling tasks but not for Chris. He had fun. He loved it. As a matter of fact, posted on the wall of our little Hart kitchen, we have a selfie on election night of my crew at the victory party. The picture is entitled ``This is what victory looks like.'' And right smack-dab in the middle is one smiling Chris Allen. Now, when I am heating up my coffee, I look at Chris in the picture, and I can feel his joy as he is surrounded by our family of staffers. Elections weren't his only love. Chris Allen loved a cold beer. He loved a natty jacket. He loved loud pants. Sometimes he loved wearing them together. He loved his lacrosse. He loved his Baltimore neighborhood. He loved all things English and French. He loved researching his ancestry. Chris Allen loved his parents, his in-laws, his brothers, his nieces and nephews, but nothing compared to his love for Lynda, Lucie, and Sophie. He was not just a proud dad who boasted of his daughters' accomplishments big and small; he was better. He was a father who took delight in the things his daughters said and did, big and small. They were cherished. May they understand today and always that we loved Chris, and he loved them. I always looked forward to my briefings with Chris. For one, he got my jokes. He understood my references to radio and television shows and personalities that my other staff would have to research and look up. But he was also understanding of the history of the issues, even those not in his portfolio. He was an excellent steward of my priorities on the Finance Committee, so much so they stole him from me. At the time I told him, ``Listen, you still work for me, you are just sitting down the hall.'' To illustrate Chris' popularity, I would like to share this story. There is an annual, all-day legislative meeting held in Washington for a Kansas group that requires a lot of preparation. My staff must be able to speak about a variety of topics and difficult issues before an audience of at least 100 Kansans. At one of these such meetings, Chris had just left my office to work at tax nerd nirvana, the Senate Finance Committee. I called him back to answer a few tax questions while my new staffer transitioned into the role. Before Chris was scheduled to arrive, a number of questions about taxes came up and my staff deferred to him, mentioning they would wait for the ``real tax guy'' to show up. Their repeated deference to him built up a feeling of anticipation in the room. At long last, Chris strolls in, and heads swivel around to the back of the room to see the great tax man cometh. It was like Elvis had entered the building. The audience got to their feet and gave him a standing ovation. One man was even moved to testify how Chris had helped his community on a rural tax issue and it had made all of the difference. And at the front of the room on the panel, there sat Chris in his dapper jacket, his head tilted back and his beaming smile. He loved to help and they loved him. Whether it was the tax reform bill or pension legislation, Chris' brilliant mind made the measure better--every time. And his work will have a long lasting influence on our Nation and literally millions of Americans. What a career Chris Allen had. Everyone in this room will probably agree that Chris's best stories were about himself, and he was usually his own punchline. Something had happened to him. He had messed something up, or he had gleefully embarrassed his daughters. You can hear him now. I was a bit player in one of his favorite tales. It was his first Finance Committee hearing working for me. Chris had prepped for days--weeks probably. He was both nervous and excited. As we walked over to the committee room, he told me he was calling Lynda, hoping she could watch the hearing on CSPAN and catch him sitting behind the dais. So I decided to have a little fun with Chris. As the time for questions got to the Senator next to me, I very dramatically motioned to Chris. Chris looked shocked--I am sure he was thinking, ``Oh no, what could I have forgotten to tell him.'' Chris leaned in, and I put my hand to the side of my mouth: ``Chris, this is your moment. Look very serious. Nod your head a few times. Now point at the paper I am holding--now tell me something very crucial . . . we are going to make sure Lynda sees you!'' Chris got the biggest kick out of it, and we met the goal--he was on CSPAN. So while we take the issues and the policy very seriously, and we negotiate very intensely--and Chris could sure do that--we can also stop for a minute to appreciate where we are and what a privilege it is to do these jobs. As I said, Chris never forgot or took it for granted. He appreciated every minute in the Senate. I understand Lucie has shared a link to a Google doc for Chris's friends and loved ones to share their ``short but interesting stories about Chris.'' I encourage everyone to do so. These stories will be a treasure trove for Lynda, Sophie, and Lucie. I hope you can preserve them in some way with his genealogy work. I know he would like that. I will conclude with a note to Lynda and the girls: I always say you are only as good as your staff; it is your friends and family who make you what you are. In my office, staff are family. Chris was family; you will always be family. Besides, Chris still works for me. He is just sitting and smiling a few floors up.

2020-01-06

Mr. ROBERTS

Senate

CREC-2020-01-16-pt1-PgS272-2

formal

coincidence

antisemitic

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, my top priority is ensuring the effective implementation of the National Defense Strategy. I rise today to speak about the importance of Africa as a key front in our global efforts under the NDS to compete with China and Russia, defend U.S. national security, and combat radical terrorist groups like al-Qaida and ISIS. The NDS says competition with China and Russia is ``the central challenge to U.S. prosperity and security.'' This is where DOD is rightly focusing its attention. But China's and Russia's growing influence isn't restricted to Europe and the Indo-Pacific. Recent actions by China and Russia clearly demonstrate that both countries view Africa as a critical battlefield to fulfill their global ambitions and challenge U.S. interests. Over the past 20 years, I have conducted 164 African country visits. I can tell you it is no coincidence that China established its first overseas military base in Djibouti--strategically located on one of the most important maritime transit routes in the world. I visited Djibouti last February and saw first-hand China's military base and their encroachment on the Port of Djibouti. Elsewhere, China is using cash and debt to trap countries and force them to put their infrastructure and potentially their very sovereignty on sale. For example, 90 percent of African exports depend on ports and China is funding, building, or operating at least 46 port projects in sub-Saharan Africa. In addition to giving China a potential stranglehold on African prosperity, it also provides China access to critical maritime routes and chokepoints. At the same time, Russia is using its armed forces, mercenaries, and the sale of Russian arms to buy influence, exploit Africa's natural resources, and to prop up leaders sympathetic to Russian interests and hostile to those of the West. And while the NDS states that competition with China and Russia should be DOD's top priority, it makes clear that we cannot afford to lose sight of the continuing threat posed by radical terrorist groups like al-Qaida and ISIS. Africa has been and must remain a key theater for our counterterrorism efforts. Today, more than a dozen terrorist groups with ties to al-Qaida and ISIS, like Al-Shabab, are operating across the continent. Many of these groups have ambition to attack Americans and our partners, as we saw last week when Al-Shabab militants in Kenya killed a U.S. servicemember and two DOD contractors. Without pressure the threat these groups pose to the United States will grow unchecked. And this isn't a recent development--I have seen this come up time and time again on my visits to the continent. It is why I pushed the DOD for years to stand up an Africa command. People forget that we didn't always have a dedicated military presence in Africa, despite its strategic importance. It was managed through three separate combatant commands. I worked with DOD and then-President Bush to change that, and in 2008 we officially stood up United States Africa Command AFRICOM. Despite the breadth of security challenges we face on the African continent every day, AFRICOM has consistently suffered resource shortfalls. On any given day, there are about 7,000 DOD personnel serving in Africa. Africa is home to 1.3 billion people and is larger geographically than China, India, the United States, and most of Europe--combined. In light of these significant resource and geographical challenges, the men and women of AFRICOM perform critical missions every day to check Chinese and Russian influence, combat terrorism, and strengthen the capabilities of our partners. AFRICOM provides an enormous value to the Nation for an extremely modest level of investment--the very definition of ``economy of force.'' Despite this, I understand that DOD is reviewing our military presence in Africa and is considering significant cuts. Given what is at stake for both U.S. national security and effective implementation of NDS, we must have a meaningful, albeit limited, U.S. presence in Africa. Any drawdown of our troops would be shortsighted, could cripple AFRICOM's ability to execute its mission and, as a result, would harm national security. Rather than talking about drawing down troops in Africa, we should finally assign forces to AFRICOM on an enduring basis--including an SFAB--in order to provide the command with predictable resourcing so it can be most effective in defending U.S. national security. I urge the Secretary of Defense to keep this in mind as he makes decisions on the future of our presence and role in Africa.

2020-01-06

Mr. INHOFE

Senate

CREC-2020-01-16-pt1-PgS272

formal

terrorism

Islamophobic

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, my top priority is ensuring the effective implementation of the National Defense Strategy. I rise today to speak about the importance of Africa as a key front in our global efforts under the NDS to compete with China and Russia, defend U.S. national security, and combat radical terrorist groups like al-Qaida and ISIS. The NDS says competition with China and Russia is ``the central challenge to U.S. prosperity and security.'' This is where DOD is rightly focusing its attention. But China's and Russia's growing influence isn't restricted to Europe and the Indo-Pacific. Recent actions by China and Russia clearly demonstrate that both countries view Africa as a critical battlefield to fulfill their global ambitions and challenge U.S. interests. Over the past 20 years, I have conducted 164 African country visits. I can tell you it is no coincidence that China established its first overseas military base in Djibouti--strategically located on one of the most important maritime transit routes in the world. I visited Djibouti last February and saw first-hand China's military base and their encroachment on the Port of Djibouti. Elsewhere, China is using cash and debt to trap countries and force them to put their infrastructure and potentially their very sovereignty on sale. For example, 90 percent of African exports depend on ports and China is funding, building, or operating at least 46 port projects in sub-Saharan Africa. In addition to giving China a potential stranglehold on African prosperity, it also provides China access to critical maritime routes and chokepoints. At the same time, Russia is using its armed forces, mercenaries, and the sale of Russian arms to buy influence, exploit Africa's natural resources, and to prop up leaders sympathetic to Russian interests and hostile to those of the West. And while the NDS states that competition with China and Russia should be DOD's top priority, it makes clear that we cannot afford to lose sight of the continuing threat posed by radical terrorist groups like al-Qaida and ISIS. Africa has been and must remain a key theater for our counterterrorism efforts. Today, more than a dozen terrorist groups with ties to al-Qaida and ISIS, like Al-Shabab, are operating across the continent. Many of these groups have ambition to attack Americans and our partners, as we saw last week when Al-Shabab militants in Kenya killed a U.S. servicemember and two DOD contractors. Without pressure the threat these groups pose to the United States will grow unchecked. And this isn't a recent development--I have seen this come up time and time again on my visits to the continent. It is why I pushed the DOD for years to stand up an Africa command. People forget that we didn't always have a dedicated military presence in Africa, despite its strategic importance. It was managed through three separate combatant commands. I worked with DOD and then-President Bush to change that, and in 2008 we officially stood up United States Africa Command AFRICOM. Despite the breadth of security challenges we face on the African continent every day, AFRICOM has consistently suffered resource shortfalls. On any given day, there are about 7,000 DOD personnel serving in Africa. Africa is home to 1.3 billion people and is larger geographically than China, India, the United States, and most of Europe--combined. In light of these significant resource and geographical challenges, the men and women of AFRICOM perform critical missions every day to check Chinese and Russian influence, combat terrorism, and strengthen the capabilities of our partners. AFRICOM provides an enormous value to the Nation for an extremely modest level of investment--the very definition of ``economy of force.'' Despite this, I understand that DOD is reviewing our military presence in Africa and is considering significant cuts. Given what is at stake for both U.S. national security and effective implementation of NDS, we must have a meaningful, albeit limited, U.S. presence in Africa. Any drawdown of our troops would be shortsighted, could cripple AFRICOM's ability to execute its mission and, as a result, would harm national security. Rather than talking about drawing down troops in Africa, we should finally assign forces to AFRICOM on an enduring basis--including an SFAB--in order to provide the command with predictable resourcing so it can be most effective in defending U.S. national security. I urge the Secretary of Defense to keep this in mind as he makes decisions on the future of our presence and role in Africa.

2020-01-06

Mr. INHOFE

Senate

CREC-2020-01-16-pt1-PgS272

formal

terrorist

Islamophobic

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, my top priority is ensuring the effective implementation of the National Defense Strategy. I rise today to speak about the importance of Africa as a key front in our global efforts under the NDS to compete with China and Russia, defend U.S. national security, and combat radical terrorist groups like al-Qaida and ISIS. The NDS says competition with China and Russia is ``the central challenge to U.S. prosperity and security.'' This is where DOD is rightly focusing its attention. But China's and Russia's growing influence isn't restricted to Europe and the Indo-Pacific. Recent actions by China and Russia clearly demonstrate that both countries view Africa as a critical battlefield to fulfill their global ambitions and challenge U.S. interests. Over the past 20 years, I have conducted 164 African country visits. I can tell you it is no coincidence that China established its first overseas military base in Djibouti--strategically located on one of the most important maritime transit routes in the world. I visited Djibouti last February and saw first-hand China's military base and their encroachment on the Port of Djibouti. Elsewhere, China is using cash and debt to trap countries and force them to put their infrastructure and potentially their very sovereignty on sale. For example, 90 percent of African exports depend on ports and China is funding, building, or operating at least 46 port projects in sub-Saharan Africa. In addition to giving China a potential stranglehold on African prosperity, it also provides China access to critical maritime routes and chokepoints. At the same time, Russia is using its armed forces, mercenaries, and the sale of Russian arms to buy influence, exploit Africa's natural resources, and to prop up leaders sympathetic to Russian interests and hostile to those of the West. And while the NDS states that competition with China and Russia should be DOD's top priority, it makes clear that we cannot afford to lose sight of the continuing threat posed by radical terrorist groups like al-Qaida and ISIS. Africa has been and must remain a key theater for our counterterrorism efforts. Today, more than a dozen terrorist groups with ties to al-Qaida and ISIS, like Al-Shabab, are operating across the continent. Many of these groups have ambition to attack Americans and our partners, as we saw last week when Al-Shabab militants in Kenya killed a U.S. servicemember and two DOD contractors. Without pressure the threat these groups pose to the United States will grow unchecked. And this isn't a recent development--I have seen this come up time and time again on my visits to the continent. It is why I pushed the DOD for years to stand up an Africa command. People forget that we didn't always have a dedicated military presence in Africa, despite its strategic importance. It was managed through three separate combatant commands. I worked with DOD and then-President Bush to change that, and in 2008 we officially stood up United States Africa Command AFRICOM. Despite the breadth of security challenges we face on the African continent every day, AFRICOM has consistently suffered resource shortfalls. On any given day, there are about 7,000 DOD personnel serving in Africa. Africa is home to 1.3 billion people and is larger geographically than China, India, the United States, and most of Europe--combined. In light of these significant resource and geographical challenges, the men and women of AFRICOM perform critical missions every day to check Chinese and Russian influence, combat terrorism, and strengthen the capabilities of our partners. AFRICOM provides an enormous value to the Nation for an extremely modest level of investment--the very definition of ``economy of force.'' Despite this, I understand that DOD is reviewing our military presence in Africa and is considering significant cuts. Given what is at stake for both U.S. national security and effective implementation of NDS, we must have a meaningful, albeit limited, U.S. presence in Africa. Any drawdown of our troops would be shortsighted, could cripple AFRICOM's ability to execute its mission and, as a result, would harm national security. Rather than talking about drawing down troops in Africa, we should finally assign forces to AFRICOM on an enduring basis--including an SFAB--in order to provide the command with predictable resourcing so it can be most effective in defending U.S. national security. I urge the Secretary of Defense to keep this in mind as he makes decisions on the future of our presence and role in Africa.

2020-01-06

Mr. INHOFE

Senate

CREC-2020-01-16-pt1-PgS272

formal

blue

antisemitic

Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, would like to congratulate one of my fellow Idahoans, Robert Long, on winning first place in the Mongol Derby. This annual competition held in August brings people from around the world to race across the Mongolian Steppe on horseback. Robert finished the course without any setbacks. This is truly one of the toughest tests of skill and endurance for any horseman or woman, and I am proud that an Idahoan represented the United States with such excellence. The Mongol Derby course follows the ancient path of Genghis Khan's horse messenger system first set up over 800 years ago. The course crosses 600 miles of some of Mongolia's harshest terrain and takes riders over a week to complete. Contestants are not only challenged by the terrain but also by the traditional methods of the race. The hundreds of horses that shoulder the journey are recruited from the local Mongolians' herds. Riders change horses every 25 miles, just as the ancient Mongols did. Thus, contestants must have the skill to adapt to each new mount and the instinct to ride within the limits of its strengths and weaknesses. Although the riders are racing towards the finish, they are also responsible for taking care of their horses' wellbeing and ensuring they are not overworked or injured during the journey. Robert's experience with animals helped him to win the race without any veterinary penalties. Robert's victory was surely an outcome of his extensive experience working with horses on the American Western terrain. ``Cowboy Bob,'' as he is known by his close friends, was raised in Wyoming and now lives in Boise, IA. He trained for the Mongol Derby across the American West, where the rough terrain is not so different from that of the Mongolian Steppe. Robert not only made an impression as a master horseman but also as a gracious guest. The course covers a vast area inhabited by Mongolian nomad herders, who volunteer their horses for the competitors in the race at each stop. Robert presented each herder with a blue ribbon from his past competitions, which he brought after learning the significance of the color blue in Mongolia, the Land of Eternal Blue Sky. In taking part in this race and performing with thoughtfulness and mastery, Robert exemplified how well Americans can relate to other peoples and cultures. U.S.-Mongolia relations have been growing stronger since our two nations established diplomatic ties over 30 years ago. That the Mongol Derby attracts riders from across the world demonstrates Mongolia's ability to build global connections throughhistory and culture. However, Mongolia's contributions are certainly not limited to these spheres. Mongolia is an example of a strong democracy. Mongolia currently has over 1,000 peacekeepers deployed in Africa and contributed troops to the fight against terrorism in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Mongolia is an important friend of the United States in the Indo-Pacific region. I encourage a closer relationship between the United States and Mongolia. I thank Robert for representing his country and the State of Idaho well through fostering friendship and excellence abroad.

2020-01-06

Mr. RISCH

Senate

CREC-2020-01-16-pt1-PgS274-2

formal

terrorism

Islamophobic

Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, would like to congratulate one of my fellow Idahoans, Robert Long, on winning first place in the Mongol Derby. This annual competition held in August brings people from around the world to race across the Mongolian Steppe on horseback. Robert finished the course without any setbacks. This is truly one of the toughest tests of skill and endurance for any horseman or woman, and I am proud that an Idahoan represented the United States with such excellence. The Mongol Derby course follows the ancient path of Genghis Khan's horse messenger system first set up over 800 years ago. The course crosses 600 miles of some of Mongolia's harshest terrain and takes riders over a week to complete. Contestants are not only challenged by the terrain but also by the traditional methods of the race. The hundreds of horses that shoulder the journey are recruited from the local Mongolians' herds. Riders change horses every 25 miles, just as the ancient Mongols did. Thus, contestants must have the skill to adapt to each new mount and the instinct to ride within the limits of its strengths and weaknesses. Although the riders are racing towards the finish, they are also responsible for taking care of their horses' wellbeing and ensuring they are not overworked or injured during the journey. Robert's experience with animals helped him to win the race without any veterinary penalties. Robert's victory was surely an outcome of his extensive experience working with horses on the American Western terrain. ``Cowboy Bob,'' as he is known by his close friends, was raised in Wyoming and now lives in Boise, IA. He trained for the Mongol Derby across the American West, where the rough terrain is not so different from that of the Mongolian Steppe. Robert not only made an impression as a master horseman but also as a gracious guest. The course covers a vast area inhabited by Mongolian nomad herders, who volunteer their horses for the competitors in the race at each stop. Robert presented each herder with a blue ribbon from his past competitions, which he brought after learning the significance of the color blue in Mongolia, the Land of Eternal Blue Sky. In taking part in this race and performing with thoughtfulness and mastery, Robert exemplified how well Americans can relate to other peoples and cultures. U.S.-Mongolia relations have been growing stronger since our two nations established diplomatic ties over 30 years ago. That the Mongol Derby attracts riders from across the world demonstrates Mongolia's ability to build global connections throughhistory and culture. However, Mongolia's contributions are certainly not limited to these spheres. Mongolia is an example of a strong democracy. Mongolia currently has over 1,000 peacekeepers deployed in Africa and contributed troops to the fight against terrorism in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Mongolia is an important friend of the United States in the Indo-Pacific region. I encourage a closer relationship between the United States and Mongolia. I thank Robert for representing his country and the State of Idaho well through fostering friendship and excellence abroad.

2020-01-06

Mr. RISCH

Senate

CREC-2020-01-16-pt1-PgS274-2

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a close friend, ally, and devoted public servant, Mr. Carl Adrian, as he retires from a 16-year career supporting our national security, environmental cleanup, economic growth, job creation, and furthering the ever-expanding missions of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL, as well as advancements in innovation and more tied to each of these in my home State of Washington. Mr. Adrian, retiring president and CEO of Tri-Cities Development Council--TRIDEC--began his service to the Pasco, Richland, West Richland, and Kennewick cities, also known as the TriCities, on September 1, 2003. Mr. Adrian arrived in the Tri-Cities as a transplant, being born and raised in Omaha, NE, where he graduated from Westside High School. Mr. Adrian then obtained his bachelor of arts in political science, geography, and later a masters of administration in urban and economic geography from the University of Iowa. Prior to Mr. Adrian's tenure with TRIDEC, he spent significant time supporting economic development throughout the central region of the United States through his work with multiple organizations. He served communities in Casper, WY, the Quad-City area of both Iowa and Illinois, and Cedar Valley located in Waterloo/Cedar Falls, IA, before embarking upon his last enterprise in the Tri-Cities. Mr. Adrian has devoted his life to supporting commerce and new innovation in the region. In his role at TRIDEC, Mr. Adrian has been one of the Tri-Cities most effective advocates to Congress, frequently working to ensure members of Washington State's congressional delegation were abreast of the concerns and needs of the community while also helping to strengthen federal support for Central Washington priorities, including working to successfully expand Washington State's wine industry, signing vital MOUs with Hong Kong to bolster the local economy, and more. Mr. Adrian's dedication to inclusive collaboration ensures important stakeholders are never left uninformed on the needs of the Tri-Cities area, and through his robust advocacy, the region has seen significant population and economic growth as well as industry expansion, offering many Tri-Citians a new path to the American Dream. As TRIDEC's longest-serving president, Mr. Adrian has successfully led efforts to help expand the Tri-Cities airport and offer nonstop daily flights to key regional airports; create the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in 2015; promote services to attract, retain, and improve commerce and economic development throughout the region, which led to significant job growth, population growth, and the development of several new business ventures in the TriCities. It is clear to me that Washington State has benefited greatly from Mr. Adrian's vision and passion for promoting what the Tri-Cities community, its workforce, the Hanford Site, and PNNL have to offer, as I have seen firsthand both at home and in the other Washington. His work is evident in the progress that has been made on environmental cleanup at Hanford, as well as his work to help plan a future for the Tri-Cities that looks past cleanup operations towards preserving the region's rich history through designations of the B Reactor as a National Historic Landmark and Manhattan Project National Historical Park, and seeking out new, emerging opportunities like small modular reactors to help grow additional economic opportunities in the region and boost Washington State's leadership role in cutting-edge energy technologies to combat climate change. Through all of this, he has remained as committed as they come. Last August, when I had the good fortune to get one more visit with Mr. Adrian at PNNL, I was unsurprised that he still carried the same enthusiasm and pride for his work as he did during his first visit with me in 2003. Mr. Adrian has been critical to my work in the U.S. Senate to ensure the Federal Government is keeping its commitments to central Washington, and he has made a tremendous impact on the Tri-Cities community, Washington State, and our Nation. Today, I join with others throughout the State of Washington in thanking him for his many years of service. I congratulate Mr. Carl Adrian on his retirement and wish him and his wife Rheta the best of luck as they write their next chapter together.

2020-01-06

Mrs. MURRAY

Senate

CREC-2020-01-16-pt1-PgS274

formal

urban

racist

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a close friend, ally, and devoted public servant, Mr. Carl Adrian, as he retires from a 16-year career supporting our national security, environmental cleanup, economic growth, job creation, and furthering the ever-expanding missions of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL, as well as advancements in innovation and more tied to each of these in my home State of Washington. Mr. Adrian, retiring president and CEO of Tri-Cities Development Council--TRIDEC--began his service to the Pasco, Richland, West Richland, and Kennewick cities, also known as the TriCities, on September 1, 2003. Mr. Adrian arrived in the Tri-Cities as a transplant, being born and raised in Omaha, NE, where he graduated from Westside High School. Mr. Adrian then obtained his bachelor of arts in political science, geography, and later a masters of administration in urban and economic geography from the University of Iowa. Prior to Mr. Adrian's tenure with TRIDEC, he spent significant time supporting economic development throughout the central region of the United States through his work with multiple organizations. He served communities in Casper, WY, the Quad-City area of both Iowa and Illinois, and Cedar Valley located in Waterloo/Cedar Falls, IA, before embarking upon his last enterprise in the Tri-Cities. Mr. Adrian has devoted his life to supporting commerce and new innovation in the region. In his role at TRIDEC, Mr. Adrian has been one of the Tri-Cities most effective advocates to Congress, frequently working to ensure members of Washington State's congressional delegation were abreast of the concerns and needs of the community while also helping to strengthen federal support for Central Washington priorities, including working to successfully expand Washington State's wine industry, signing vital MOUs with Hong Kong to bolster the local economy, and more. Mr. Adrian's dedication to inclusive collaboration ensures important stakeholders are never left uninformed on the needs of the Tri-Cities area, and through his robust advocacy, the region has seen significant population and economic growth as well as industry expansion, offering many Tri-Citians a new path to the American Dream. As TRIDEC's longest-serving president, Mr. Adrian has successfully led efforts to help expand the Tri-Cities airport and offer nonstop daily flights to key regional airports; create the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in 2015; promote services to attract, retain, and improve commerce and economic development throughout the region, which led to significant job growth, population growth, and the development of several new business ventures in the TriCities. It is clear to me that Washington State has benefited greatly from Mr. Adrian's vision and passion for promoting what the Tri-Cities community, its workforce, the Hanford Site, and PNNL have to offer, as I have seen firsthand both at home and in the other Washington. His work is evident in the progress that has been made on environmental cleanup at Hanford, as well as his work to help plan a future for the Tri-Cities that looks past cleanup operations towards preserving the region's rich history through designations of the B Reactor as a National Historic Landmark and Manhattan Project National Historical Park, and seeking out new, emerging opportunities like small modular reactors to help grow additional economic opportunities in the region and boost Washington State's leadership role in cutting-edge energy technologies to combat climate change. Through all of this, he has remained as committed as they come. Last August, when I had the good fortune to get one more visit with Mr. Adrian at PNNL, I was unsurprised that he still carried the same enthusiasm and pride for his work as he did during his first visit with me in 2003. Mr. Adrian has been critical to my work in the U.S. Senate to ensure the Federal Government is keeping its commitments to central Washington, and he has made a tremendous impact on the Tri-Cities community, Washington State, and our Nation. Today, I join with others throughout the State of Washington in thanking him for his many years of service. I congratulate Mr. Carl Adrian on his retirement and wish him and his wife Rheta the best of luck as they write their next chapter together.

2020-01-06

Mrs. MURRAY

Senate

CREC-2020-01-16-pt1-PgS274

formal

job creation

conservative

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a close friend, ally, and devoted public servant, Mr. Carl Adrian, as he retires from a 16-year career supporting our national security, environmental cleanup, economic growth, job creation, and furthering the ever-expanding missions of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL, as well as advancements in innovation and more tied to each of these in my home State of Washington. Mr. Adrian, retiring president and CEO of Tri-Cities Development Council--TRIDEC--began his service to the Pasco, Richland, West Richland, and Kennewick cities, also known as the TriCities, on September 1, 2003. Mr. Adrian arrived in the Tri-Cities as a transplant, being born and raised in Omaha, NE, where he graduated from Westside High School. Mr. Adrian then obtained his bachelor of arts in political science, geography, and later a masters of administration in urban and economic geography from the University of Iowa. Prior to Mr. Adrian's tenure with TRIDEC, he spent significant time supporting economic development throughout the central region of the United States through his work with multiple organizations. He served communities in Casper, WY, the Quad-City area of both Iowa and Illinois, and Cedar Valley located in Waterloo/Cedar Falls, IA, before embarking upon his last enterprise in the Tri-Cities. Mr. Adrian has devoted his life to supporting commerce and new innovation in the region. In his role at TRIDEC, Mr. Adrian has been one of the Tri-Cities most effective advocates to Congress, frequently working to ensure members of Washington State's congressional delegation were abreast of the concerns and needs of the community while also helping to strengthen federal support for Central Washington priorities, including working to successfully expand Washington State's wine industry, signing vital MOUs with Hong Kong to bolster the local economy, and more. Mr. Adrian's dedication to inclusive collaboration ensures important stakeholders are never left uninformed on the needs of the Tri-Cities area, and through his robust advocacy, the region has seen significant population and economic growth as well as industry expansion, offering many Tri-Citians a new path to the American Dream. As TRIDEC's longest-serving president, Mr. Adrian has successfully led efforts to help expand the Tri-Cities airport and offer nonstop daily flights to key regional airports; create the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in 2015; promote services to attract, retain, and improve commerce and economic development throughout the region, which led to significant job growth, population growth, and the development of several new business ventures in the TriCities. It is clear to me that Washington State has benefited greatly from Mr. Adrian's vision and passion for promoting what the Tri-Cities community, its workforce, the Hanford Site, and PNNL have to offer, as I have seen firsthand both at home and in the other Washington. His work is evident in the progress that has been made on environmental cleanup at Hanford, as well as his work to help plan a future for the Tri-Cities that looks past cleanup operations towards preserving the region's rich history through designations of the B Reactor as a National Historic Landmark and Manhattan Project National Historical Park, and seeking out new, emerging opportunities like small modular reactors to help grow additional economic opportunities in the region and boost Washington State's leadership role in cutting-edge energy technologies to combat climate change. Through all of this, he has remained as committed as they come. Last August, when I had the good fortune to get one more visit with Mr. Adrian at PNNL, I was unsurprised that he still carried the same enthusiasm and pride for his work as he did during his first visit with me in 2003. Mr. Adrian has been critical to my work in the U.S. Senate to ensure the Federal Government is keeping its commitments to central Washington, and he has made a tremendous impact on the Tri-Cities community, Washington State, and our Nation. Today, I join with others throughout the State of Washington in thanking him for his many years of service. I congratulate Mr. Carl Adrian on his retirement and wish him and his wife Rheta the best of luck as they write their next chapter together.

2020-01-06

Mrs. MURRAY

Senate

CREC-2020-01-16-pt1-PgS274

formal

based

white supremacist

The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-3771. A communication from the Director, Regulations Management Division, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Rural Development Advance Biofuel Producer Payment'' (RIN0570-AC75) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 14, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-3772. A communication from the Policy Analyst, Commodity Credit Corporation, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (EQIP) Interim Rule'' ((7 CFR Part 1468) (RIN0578-AA66)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 14, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-3773. A communication from the Policy Analyst, Commodity Credit Corporation, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Interim Rule'' ((7 CFR Part 1466) (RIN0578-AA68)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 14, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-3774. A communication from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Federal Student Loan Repayment Program Calendar Year 2018''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-3775. A communication from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, the President's Pay Agent, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the extension of locality based comparability payments; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-3776. A communication from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program (FEORP) for Fiscal Year 2017''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-01-16-pt1-PgS275-6

formal

single

homophobic

The following petition or memorial was laid before the Senate and was referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated: POM-178. A resolution adopted by the Senate of the State of New Jersey urging the United States Congress and the President of the United States to enact legislation establishing a safe daily level of cannabidiol consumption; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Senate Resolution No. 163 Whereas, Cannabidiol is a chemical that is prevalent in [marijuana and hemp] products derived from the cannabis plant; and Whereas, [Cannabidiol] Unlike tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is also prevalent in products derived from the cannabis plant, the consumption of cannabidiol does not produce euphoric effects or cause an individual to feel ``high'' [in contrast to the chemical tetrahydrocannabidol (THC)]; and Whereas, The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states that products such as food additives and dietary supplements that contain cannabidiol are illegal under federal law; and Whereas, Within the past three years, more than 1,500 cannabidiol products have come to the market without a clear approach for regulation or any plan from the FDA to balance consumer access and protect consumer health; and Whereas, The lack of clear policy towards cannabidiol from the FDA and the patchwork regulation of the substance by the states [create] has created a complicated legal framework [for] in which cannabidiol companies [for their operations] are attempting to operate; and Whereas, The lack of clear regulatory guidance includes uncertainty as to the level of cannabidiol content that is safe and appropriate for human consumption. This uncertainty can present a risk to the public health, as consumers have access to a wide variety of cannabidiol products but no clear direction as to what amount is safe to consume in a single sitting or over the course of time; and Whereas, As a result of this uncertain legal framework, it has become difficult for cannabidiol companies to participate in interstate commerce [for national cannabidiol companies is difficult] because banks, insurance companies, and merchant service companies are uneasy about providing services to cannabidiol companies, which may be at [the] risk of [involvement from] investigation or adverse enforcement actions by the FDA; and Whereas, By enacting legislation that specifies a safe daily level of cannabidiol consumption, the President and Congress of the United States would [be able to] help allow individuals to experience the [medical] holistic and therapeutic benefits of cannabidiol while ensuring consumer safety and [also generate] facilitate the participation of cannabicliol companies in interstate commerce, thereby generating increased economic activity [from all interstate commerce for cannabidiol companies] nationwide, now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate of the State of New Jersey: 1. This House respectfully urges the President and Congress of the United States to [establish] enact legislation establishing a safe daily consumption level [of] for cannabidiol [consumption]. 2. Copies of this resolution, as filed with the Secretary of State, shall be transmitted by the Secretary of the Senate to the President and Vice President of the United States, the Majority and Minority Leaders of the United States Senate, the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, and each member of the United States Congress elected from this State.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-01-16-pt1-PgS275-7

formal

public school

racist

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Perdue, Mrs. Loeffler, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Graham, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Thune, Mr. Braun, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Boozman, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Young, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Paul, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Romney, Mr. Burr, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Lee, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Daines) submitted thefollowing resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 478 Whereas providing a diversity of choices in K-12 education empowers parents to select education environments that meet the individual needs and strengths of their children; Whereas high-quality K-12 education environments of all varieties are available in the United States, including traditional public schools, public charter schools, public magnet schools, private schools, online academies, and home schooling; Whereas talented teachers and school leaders in each of the education environments prepare children to achieve their dreams; Whereas more families than ever before in the United States actively choose the best education for their children; Whereas more public awareness of the issue of parental choice in education can inform additional families of the benefits of proactively choosing challenging, motivating, and effective education environments for their children; Whereas the process by which parents choose schools for their children is nonpolitical, nonpartisan, and deserves the utmost respect; and Whereas tens of thousands of events are planned to celebrate the benefits of educational choice during the tenth annual National School Choice Week, held the week of January 26 through February 1, 2020: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates the week of January 26 through February 1, 2020, as ``National School Choice Week''; (2) congratulates students, parents, teachers, and school leaders from K-12 education environments of all varieties for their persistence, achievements, dedication, and contributions to society in the United States; (3) encourages all parents, during National School Choice Week, to learn more about the education options available to them; and (4) encourages the people of the United States to hold appropriate programs, events, and activities during National School Choice Week to raise public awareness of the benefits of opportunity in education.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-01-16-pt1-PgS280-4

formal

public schools

racist

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Perdue, Mrs. Loeffler, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Graham, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Thune, Mr. Braun, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Boozman, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Young, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Paul, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Romney, Mr. Burr, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Lee, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Daines) submitted thefollowing resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 478 Whereas providing a diversity of choices in K-12 education empowers parents to select education environments that meet the individual needs and strengths of their children; Whereas high-quality K-12 education environments of all varieties are available in the United States, including traditional public schools, public charter schools, public magnet schools, private schools, online academies, and home schooling; Whereas talented teachers and school leaders in each of the education environments prepare children to achieve their dreams; Whereas more families than ever before in the United States actively choose the best education for their children; Whereas more public awareness of the issue of parental choice in education can inform additional families of the benefits of proactively choosing challenging, motivating, and effective education environments for their children; Whereas the process by which parents choose schools for their children is nonpolitical, nonpartisan, and deserves the utmost respect; and Whereas tens of thousands of events are planned to celebrate the benefits of educational choice during the tenth annual National School Choice Week, held the week of January 26 through February 1, 2020: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates the week of January 26 through February 1, 2020, as ``National School Choice Week''; (2) congratulates students, parents, teachers, and school leaders from K-12 education environments of all varieties for their persistence, achievements, dedication, and contributions to society in the United States; (3) encourages all parents, during National School Choice Week, to learn more about the education options available to them; and (4) encourages the people of the United States to hold appropriate programs, events, and activities during National School Choice Week to raise public awareness of the benefits of opportunity in education.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-01-16-pt1-PgS280-4

formal

educational choice

racist

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Perdue, Mrs. Loeffler, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Graham, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Thune, Mr. Braun, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Boozman, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Young, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Paul, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Romney, Mr. Burr, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Lee, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Daines) submitted thefollowing resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 478 Whereas providing a diversity of choices in K-12 education empowers parents to select education environments that meet the individual needs and strengths of their children; Whereas high-quality K-12 education environments of all varieties are available in the United States, including traditional public schools, public charter schools, public magnet schools, private schools, online academies, and home schooling; Whereas talented teachers and school leaders in each of the education environments prepare children to achieve their dreams; Whereas more families than ever before in the United States actively choose the best education for their children; Whereas more public awareness of the issue of parental choice in education can inform additional families of the benefits of proactively choosing challenging, motivating, and effective education environments for their children; Whereas the process by which parents choose schools for their children is nonpolitical, nonpartisan, and deserves the utmost respect; and Whereas tens of thousands of events are planned to celebrate the benefits of educational choice during the tenth annual National School Choice Week, held the week of January 26 through February 1, 2020: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates the week of January 26 through February 1, 2020, as ``National School Choice Week''; (2) congratulates students, parents, teachers, and school leaders from K-12 education environments of all varieties for their persistence, achievements, dedication, and contributions to society in the United States; (3) encourages all parents, during National School Choice Week, to learn more about the education options available to them; and (4) encourages the people of the United States to hold appropriate programs, events, and activities during National School Choice Week to raise public awareness of the benefits of opportunity in education.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-01-16-pt1-PgS280-4

formal

single

homophobic

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, last Thursday, the U.S. Senate crossed one of the greatest thresholds that exist in our system of government. We began just the third Presidential impeachment trial in American history. This is a unique responsibility which the Framers of our Constitution knew that the Senate--and only the Senate--could handle. Our Founders trusted the Senate to rise above short-term passions and factionalism. They trusted the Senate to soberly consider what has actually been proven and which outcome best serves the Nation. That is a pretty high bar, and you might say that later today, this body will take our entrance exam. Today, we will consider and pass an organizing resolution that will structure the first phase of the trial. This initial step will offer an early signal to our country. Can the Senate still serve our founding purpose? Can we still put fairness, evenhandedness, and historical precedent ahead of the partisan passions of the day? Today's vote will contain some answers. The organizing resolution we will put forward already has the support of a majority of the Senate. That is because it sets up a structure that is fair, evenhanded, and tracks closely with past precedents that were established unanimously. After pretrial business, the resolution establishes the four things that need to happen next. First, the Senate will hear an opening presentation from the House managers. Second, we will hear from the President's counsel. Third, Senators will be able to seek further information by posing written questions to either side through the Chief Justice. Fourth, with all that information in hand, the Senate will consider whether we feel any additional evidence or witnesses are necessary to evaluate whether the House case has cleared or failed to clear the high bar of overcoming the presumption of innocence and undoing a democratic election. The Senate's fair process will draw a sharp contrast with the unfair and precedent-breaking inquiry that was carried on by the House of Representatives. The House broke with precedent by denying Members of the Republican minority the same rights that Democrats had received when they were in the minority back in 1998. Here in the Senate, every single Senator will have exactly the same rights and exactly the same ability to ask questions. The House broke with fairness by cutting President Trump's counsel out of their inquiry to an unprecedented degree. Here in the Senate, the President's lawyers will finally receive a level playing field with the House Democrats and will finally be able to present the President's case. Finally, some fairness. On every point, our straightforward resolution will bring the clarity and fairness that everyone deserves--the President of the United States, the House of Representatives, and the American people. This is the fair roadmap for our trial. We need it in place before we can move forward, so the Senate should prepare to remain in session today until we complete this resolution and adopt it. This basic, four-part structure aligns with the first steps of the Clinton impeachment trial in 1999. Twenty-one years ago, 100 Senators agreed unanimously that this roadmap was the right way to begin the trial. All 100 Senators agreed the proper time to consider the question of potential witnesses was after--after--opening arguments and Senators' questions. Now, some outside voices have been urging the Senate to break with precedent on this question. Loud voices, including the leadership of the House majority, colluded with Senate Democrats and tried to force the Senate to precommit ourselves to seek specific witnesses and documents before Senators had even heard opening arguments or even asked questions. These are potential witnesses whom the House managers themselves--themselves--declined to hear from, whom the House itself declined to pursue through the legal system during its own inquiry. The House was not facing any deadline. They were free to run whateverinvestigation they wanted to run. If they wanted witnesses who would trigger legal battles over Presidential privilege, they could have had those fights. However, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee decided not to. They decided their inquiry was finished and moved right ahead. The House chose not to pursue the same witnesses they apparently would now like--would now like--the Senate to precommit to pursuing ourselves. As I have been saying for weeks, nobody--nobody--will dictate Senate procedure to U.S. Senators. A majority of us are committed to upholding the unanimous, bipartisan Clinton precedent against outside influences with respect to the proper timing of these midtrial questions. So if any amendments are brought forward to force premature decisions on midtrial questions, I will move to table such amendments and protect our bipartisan precedent. If a Senator moves to amend the resolution or to subpoena specific witnesses or documents, I will move to table such motions because the Senate will decide those questions later in the trial, just like we did back in 1999. Now, today may present a curious situation. We may hear House managers themselves agitate for such amendments. We may hear a team of managers led by the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees chairmen argue that the Senate must precommit ourselves to reopen the very investigation they themselves oversaw and voluntarily shut down. It would be curious to hear these two House chairmen argue that the Senate must precommit ourselves to supplementing their own evidentiary record, to enforcing subpoenas they refused to enforce, to supplementing a case they themselves have recently described as ``overwhelming''--``overwhelming''--and ``beyond any reasonable doubt.'' These midtrial questions could potentially take us even deeper into even more complex constitutional waters. For example, many Senators, including me, have serious concerns about blurring--blurring--the traditional role between the House and the Senate within the impeachment process. The Constitution divides the power to impeach from the power to try. The first belongs solely to the House, and with the power to impeach comes the responsibility to investigate. The Senate agreeing to pick up and carry on the House's inadequate investigation would set a new precedent that could incentivize frequent and hasty impeachments from future House majorities. It could dramatically change the separation of powers between the House and the Senate if the Senate agrees we will conduct both the investigation and the trial of an impeachment. What is more, some of the proposed new witnesses include executive branch officials whose communications with the President and with other executive branch officials lie at the very core of the President's constitutional privilege. Pursuing those witnesses could indefinitely delay the Senate trial and draw our body into a protracted and complex legal fight over Presidential privilege. Such litigation could potentially have permanent repercussions for the separation of powers and the institution of the Presidency that Senators would need to consider very, very carefully. So the Senate is not about to rush into these weighty questions without discussion and without deliberation--without even hearing opening arguments first. There were good reasons why 100 out of 100 Senators agreed two decades ago to cross these bridges when we came to them. That is what we will do this time as well. Fair is fair. The process was good enough for President Clinton, and basic fairness dictates it ought to be good enough for this President as well. The eyes are on the Senate. The country is watching to see if we can rise to the occasion. Twenty-one years ago, 100 Senators, including a number of us who sit in the Chamber today, did just that. The body approved a fair, commonsense process to guide the beginning of a Presidential impeachment trial. Today, two decades later, this Senate will retake that entrance exam. The basic structure we are proposing is just as eminently fair and evenhanded as it was back then. The question is whether the Senators are themselves ready to be as fair and as evenhanded. The Senate made a statement 21 years ago. We said that Presidents of either party deserve basic justice and a fair process. A challenging political moment like today does not make such statements less necessary but all the more necessary, in fact. So I would say to my colleagues across the aisle: There is no reason why the vote on this resolution ought to be remotely partisan. There is no reason other than base partisanship to say this particular President deserves a radically different rule book than what was good enough for a past President of your own party. I urge every single Senator to support our fair resolution. I urge everyone to vote to uphold the Senate's unanimous bipartisan precedent of a fair process.

2020-01-06

Mr. McCONNELL

Senate

CREC-2020-01-21-pt1-PgS287-5

formal

based

white supremacist

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, before I begin, there has been well-founded concern that the additional security measures required for access to the Galleries during the trial could cause reporters to miss some of the events on the Senate floor. I want to assure everyone in the press that I will vociferously oppose any attempt to begin the trial unless the reporters trying to enter the Galleries are seated. The press is here to inform the American public about these pivotal events in our Nation's history. We must make sure they are able to. Some may not want what happens here to be public; we do. Mr. President, after the conclusion of my remarks, the Senate will proceed to the impeachment trial of President Donald John Trump for committing high crimes and misdemeanors. President Trump is accused of coercing a foreign leader into interfering in our elections to benefit himself and then doing everything in his power to cover it up. If proved, the President's actions are crimes against democracy itself. It is hard to imagine a greater subversion of our democracy than for powers outside our borders to determine the elections there within. For a foreign country to attempt such a thing on its own is bad enough. For an American President to deliberately solicit such a thing--to blackmail a foreign country with military assistance to help him win an election--is unimaginably worse. I can't imagine any other President doing this. Beyond that, for then the President to deny the right of Congress to conduct oversight, deny the right to investigate any of his activities, to say article II of the Constitution gives him the right to ``do whatever [he] wants''--we are staring down an erosion of the sacred democratic principles for which our Founders fought a bloody war of independence. Such is the gravity of this historic moment. Once Senator Inhofe is sworn in at 1 p.m., the ceremonial functions at the beginning of a Presidential trial will be complete. The Senate then must determine the rules of the trial. The Republican leader will offer an organizing resolution that outlines his plan--his plan--for the rules of the trial. It is completely partisan. It was kept secret until the very eve of the trial. Now that it is public, it is very easy to see why. The McConnell rules seem to be designed by President Trump for President Trump. It asks the Senate to rush through as fast as possible and makes getting evidence as hard as possible. It could force presentations to take place at 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning so the American people will not see them. In short, the McConnell resolution will result in a rushed trial, with little evidence, in the dark of the night--literally the dark of night. If the President is so confident in his case, if Leader McConnell is so confident the President did nothing wrong, why don't they want the case to be presented in broad daylight? On something as important as impeachment, the McConnell resolution is nothing short of a national disgrace. This will go down--this resolution--asone of the darker moments in the Senate history, perhaps one of even the darkest. Leader McConnell has just said he wants to go by the Clinton rules. Then why did he change them, in four important ways at minimum, to all make the trial less transparent, less clear, and with less evidence? He said he wanted to get started in exactly the same way. It turns out, contrary to what the leader said--I am amazed he could say it with a straight face--that the rules are the same as the Clinton rules. The rules are not even close to the Clinton rules. Unlike the Clinton rules, the McConnell resolution does not admit the record of the House impeachment proceedings into evidence. Leader McConnell wants a trial with no existing evidence and no new evidence. A trial without evidence is not a trial; it is a coverup. Second, unlike the Clinton rules, the McConnell resolution limits presentation by the parties to 24 hours per side over only 2 days. We start at 1, 12 hours a day, we are at 1 a.m., and that is without breaks. It will be later. Leader McConnell wants to force the managers to make important parts of their case in the dark of night. No. 3, unlike the Clinton rules, the McConnell resolution places an additional hurdle to get witnesses and documents by requiring a vote on whether such motions are even in order. If that vote fails, then no motions to subpoena witnesses and documents will be in order. I don't want anyone on the other side to say: I am going to vote no first on witnesses, but then later I will determine--if they vote for McConnell's resolution, they are making it far more difficult to vote in the future, later on in the trial. And finally, unlike the Clinton rules, the McConnell resolution allows a motion to dismiss at any time--any time--in the trial. In short, contrary to what the leader has said, the McConnell rules are not at all like the Clinton rules. The Republican leader's resolution is based neither in precedent nor in principle. It is driven by partisanship and the politics of the moment. Today I will be offering amendments to fix the many flaws in Leader McConnell's deeply unfair resolution and seek the witnesses and documents we have requested, beginning with an amendment to have the Senate subpoena White House documents. Let me be clear. These amendments are not dilatory. They only seek one thing: the truth. That means relevant documents. That means relevant witnesses. That is the only way to get a fair trial, and everyone in this body knows it. Each Senate impeachment trial in our history, all 15 that were brought to completion, feature witnesses--every single one. The witnesses we request are not Democrats. They are the President's own men. The documents are not Democratic documents. They are documents, period. We don't know if the evidence of the witnesses or the documents will be exculpatory to the President or incriminating, but we have an obligation--a solemn obligation, particularly now during this most deep and solemn part of our Constitution--to seek the truth and then let the chips fall where they may. My Republican colleagues have offered several explanations for opposing witnesses and documents at the start of the trial. None of them has much merit. Republicans have said we should deal with the question of witnesses later in the trial. Of course, it makes no sense to hear both sides present their case first and then afterward decide if the Senate should hear evidence. The evidence is supposed to inform arguments, not come after they are completed. Some Republicans have said the Senate should not go beyond the House record by calling any witnesses, but the Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments--not the sole power to review, not the sole power to rehash but to try. Republicans have called our request for witnesses and documents political. If seeking the truth is political, then the Republican Party is in serious trouble. The White House has said that the Articles of Impeachment are brazen and wrong. Well, if the President believes his impeachment is so brazen and wrong, why won't he show us why? Why is the President so insistent that no one come forward, that no documents be released? If the President's case is so weak, that none of the President's men can defend him under oath, shame on him and those who allow it to happen. What is the President hiding? What are our Republican colleagues hiding? If they weren't afraid of the truth, they would say: Go right ahead, get at the truth, get witnesses, get documents. In fact, at no point over the last few months have I heard a single, solitary argument on the merits of why witnesses and documents should not be part of the trial. No Republicans explained why less evidence is better than more evidence. Nevertheless, Leader McConnell is poised to ask the Senate to begin the first impeachment trial of a President in history without witnesses; that rushes through the arguments as quickly as possible; that, in ways both shameless and subtle, will conceal the truth--the truth--from the American people. Leader McConnell claimed that the House ``ran the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history.'' The truth is, Leader McConnell is plotting the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment trial in modern history, and it begins today. The Senate has before it a very straightforward question. The President is accused of coercing a foreign power to interfere in our elections to help himself. It is the job of the Senate to determine if these very serious charges are true. The very least we can do is examine the facts, review the documents, hear the witnesses, try the case, not run from it, not hide from it--try it. If the President commits high crimes and misdemeanors and Congress refuses to act, refuses even to conduct a fair trial of his conduct, then Presidents--this President and future Presidents--can commit impeachable crimes with impunity, and the order and rigor of our democracy will dramatically decline. The fail-safe--the final fail-safe of our democracy will be rendered mute. The most powerful check on the Executive--the one designed to protect the people from tyranny--will be erased. In a short time, my colleagues, each of us, will face a choice about whether to begin this trial in search of the truth or in service of the President's desire to cover it up, whether the Senate will conduct a fair trial and a full airing of the facts or rush to a predetermined political outcome. My colleagues, the eyes of the Nation, the eyes of history, the eyes of the Founding Fathers are upon us. History will be our final judge. Will Senators rise to the occasion? I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. SCHUMER

Senate

CREC-2020-01-21-pt1-PgS288-2

formal

single

homophobic

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, before I begin, there has been well-founded concern that the additional security measures required for access to the Galleries during the trial could cause reporters to miss some of the events on the Senate floor. I want to assure everyone in the press that I will vociferously oppose any attempt to begin the trial unless the reporters trying to enter the Galleries are seated. The press is here to inform the American public about these pivotal events in our Nation's history. We must make sure they are able to. Some may not want what happens here to be public; we do. Mr. President, after the conclusion of my remarks, the Senate will proceed to the impeachment trial of President Donald John Trump for committing high crimes and misdemeanors. President Trump is accused of coercing a foreign leader into interfering in our elections to benefit himself and then doing everything in his power to cover it up. If proved, the President's actions are crimes against democracy itself. It is hard to imagine a greater subversion of our democracy than for powers outside our borders to determine the elections there within. For a foreign country to attempt such a thing on its own is bad enough. For an American President to deliberately solicit such a thing--to blackmail a foreign country with military assistance to help him win an election--is unimaginably worse. I can't imagine any other President doing this. Beyond that, for then the President to deny the right of Congress to conduct oversight, deny the right to investigate any of his activities, to say article II of the Constitution gives him the right to ``do whatever [he] wants''--we are staring down an erosion of the sacred democratic principles for which our Founders fought a bloody war of independence. Such is the gravity of this historic moment. Once Senator Inhofe is sworn in at 1 p.m., the ceremonial functions at the beginning of a Presidential trial will be complete. The Senate then must determine the rules of the trial. The Republican leader will offer an organizing resolution that outlines his plan--his plan--for the rules of the trial. It is completely partisan. It was kept secret until the very eve of the trial. Now that it is public, it is very easy to see why. The McConnell rules seem to be designed by President Trump for President Trump. It asks the Senate to rush through as fast as possible and makes getting evidence as hard as possible. It could force presentations to take place at 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning so the American people will not see them. In short, the McConnell resolution will result in a rushed trial, with little evidence, in the dark of the night--literally the dark of night. If the President is so confident in his case, if Leader McConnell is so confident the President did nothing wrong, why don't they want the case to be presented in broad daylight? On something as important as impeachment, the McConnell resolution is nothing short of a national disgrace. This will go down--this resolution--asone of the darker moments in the Senate history, perhaps one of even the darkest. Leader McConnell has just said he wants to go by the Clinton rules. Then why did he change them, in four important ways at minimum, to all make the trial less transparent, less clear, and with less evidence? He said he wanted to get started in exactly the same way. It turns out, contrary to what the leader said--I am amazed he could say it with a straight face--that the rules are the same as the Clinton rules. The rules are not even close to the Clinton rules. Unlike the Clinton rules, the McConnell resolution does not admit the record of the House impeachment proceedings into evidence. Leader McConnell wants a trial with no existing evidence and no new evidence. A trial without evidence is not a trial; it is a coverup. Second, unlike the Clinton rules, the McConnell resolution limits presentation by the parties to 24 hours per side over only 2 days. We start at 1, 12 hours a day, we are at 1 a.m., and that is without breaks. It will be later. Leader McConnell wants to force the managers to make important parts of their case in the dark of night. No. 3, unlike the Clinton rules, the McConnell resolution places an additional hurdle to get witnesses and documents by requiring a vote on whether such motions are even in order. If that vote fails, then no motions to subpoena witnesses and documents will be in order. I don't want anyone on the other side to say: I am going to vote no first on witnesses, but then later I will determine--if they vote for McConnell's resolution, they are making it far more difficult to vote in the future, later on in the trial. And finally, unlike the Clinton rules, the McConnell resolution allows a motion to dismiss at any time--any time--in the trial. In short, contrary to what the leader has said, the McConnell rules are not at all like the Clinton rules. The Republican leader's resolution is based neither in precedent nor in principle. It is driven by partisanship and the politics of the moment. Today I will be offering amendments to fix the many flaws in Leader McConnell's deeply unfair resolution and seek the witnesses and documents we have requested, beginning with an amendment to have the Senate subpoena White House documents. Let me be clear. These amendments are not dilatory. They only seek one thing: the truth. That means relevant documents. That means relevant witnesses. That is the only way to get a fair trial, and everyone in this body knows it. Each Senate impeachment trial in our history, all 15 that were brought to completion, feature witnesses--every single one. The witnesses we request are not Democrats. They are the President's own men. The documents are not Democratic documents. They are documents, period. We don't know if the evidence of the witnesses or the documents will be exculpatory to the President or incriminating, but we have an obligation--a solemn obligation, particularly now during this most deep and solemn part of our Constitution--to seek the truth and then let the chips fall where they may. My Republican colleagues have offered several explanations for opposing witnesses and documents at the start of the trial. None of them has much merit. Republicans have said we should deal with the question of witnesses later in the trial. Of course, it makes no sense to hear both sides present their case first and then afterward decide if the Senate should hear evidence. The evidence is supposed to inform arguments, not come after they are completed. Some Republicans have said the Senate should not go beyond the House record by calling any witnesses, but the Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments--not the sole power to review, not the sole power to rehash but to try. Republicans have called our request for witnesses and documents political. If seeking the truth is political, then the Republican Party is in serious trouble. The White House has said that the Articles of Impeachment are brazen and wrong. Well, if the President believes his impeachment is so brazen and wrong, why won't he show us why? Why is the President so insistent that no one come forward, that no documents be released? If the President's case is so weak, that none of the President's men can defend him under oath, shame on him and those who allow it to happen. What is the President hiding? What are our Republican colleagues hiding? If they weren't afraid of the truth, they would say: Go right ahead, get at the truth, get witnesses, get documents. In fact, at no point over the last few months have I heard a single, solitary argument on the merits of why witnesses and documents should not be part of the trial. No Republicans explained why less evidence is better than more evidence. Nevertheless, Leader McConnell is poised to ask the Senate to begin the first impeachment trial of a President in history without witnesses; that rushes through the arguments as quickly as possible; that, in ways both shameless and subtle, will conceal the truth--the truth--from the American people. Leader McConnell claimed that the House ``ran the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history.'' The truth is, Leader McConnell is plotting the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment trial in modern history, and it begins today. The Senate has before it a very straightforward question. The President is accused of coercing a foreign power to interfere in our elections to help himself. It is the job of the Senate to determine if these very serious charges are true. The very least we can do is examine the facts, review the documents, hear the witnesses, try the case, not run from it, not hide from it--try it. If the President commits high crimes and misdemeanors and Congress refuses to act, refuses even to conduct a fair trial of his conduct, then Presidents--this President and future Presidents--can commit impeachable crimes with impunity, and the order and rigor of our democracy will dramatically decline. The fail-safe--the final fail-safe of our democracy will be rendered mute. The most powerful check on the Executive--the one designed to protect the people from tyranny--will be erased. In a short time, my colleagues, each of us, will face a choice about whether to begin this trial in search of the truth or in service of the President's desire to cover it up, whether the Senate will conduct a fair trial and a full airing of the facts or rush to a predetermined political outcome. My colleagues, the eyes of the Nation, the eyes of history, the eyes of the Founding Fathers are upon us. History will be our final judge. Will Senators rise to the occasion? I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. SCHUMER

Senate

CREC-2020-01-21-pt1-PgS288-2

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Ms. ROSEN (for herself, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Cramer, and Mr. Cardin) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 481 Whereas, during World War II, the Nazi regime and its collaborators systematically murdered 6,000,000 Jews and millions of other individuals; Whereas the Auschwitz concentration camp complex in Nazi- occupied Poland, which included a killing center at Birkenau, was the largest death camp complex established by the Nazi regime; Whereas, on January 27, 1945, the Auschwitz extermination camp was liberated by Allied Forces during World War II, after almost 5 years of murder, rape, and torture at the camp; Whereas nearly 1,300,000 innocent civilians were deported to Auschwitz from their homes across Eastern and Western Europe, particularly from Hungary, Poland, and France; Whereas nearly 1,100,000 innocent civilians were murdered at the Auschwitz extermination camp between 1940 and 1945; Whereas at least 960,000 of the nearly 1,100,000 murdered people were Jewish; Whereas the more than 100,000 other victims who perished at Auschwitz included non-Jewish Poles, Romani people, Soviet civilians and prisoners of war, Afro-Germans, Jehovah's Witnesses, people with disabilities, gay men and women, and other ethnic minorities; Whereas these innocent civilians were subjected to torture, forced labor, starvation, rape, medical experiments, and being separated from loved ones; Whereas the names of many of these innocent civilians who perished have been lost forever; Whereas the Auschwitz extermination camp symbolizes the extraordinary brutality of the Holocaust; Whereas the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum teaches about and promotes remembrance of the Holocaust; Whereas the people of the United States must never forget the terrible crimes against humanity committed at the Auschwitz extermination camp; Whereas the people of the United States must educate future generations to promote understanding of the dangers of intolerance in order to prevent similar injustices, including acts of violent anti-Semitism, from happening again; Whereas, in recent years, there has been an increase in the number and intensity of anti-Semitic incidents in the United States and around the world; Whereas hate crime statistics collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation demonstrate a marked rise in anti- Semitic incidents in the United States over the past several years, and the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti- Semitism of the Department of State recently stated that the Jewish people worldwide are facing the worst wave of anti- Semitism since the Holocaust; Whereas, in 2018, the United States experienced the single deadliest attack against the Jewish community in the history of the United States with the murder of 11 individuals at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Whereas the attack in Pittsburgh was followed in 2019 by a vicious anti-Semitic attack in Poway, California, and later, by a series of violent attacks against the Orthodox Jewish community in the State of New York; and Whereas, especially in a period of rising anti-Semitism, commemoration of the liberation of the Auschwitz extermination camp will instill in all people of the United States a greater awareness of the Holocaust and knowledge of the horrors brought upon by the Nazi regime's systematic murder of 6,000,000 Jews and millions of other innocent individuals: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) commemorates January 27, 2020, as the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz extermination camp by Allied Forces during World War II; (2) calls on all people of the United States to remember the 1,100,000 innocent victims murdered at the Auschwitz extermination camp as part of the Holocaust, the 6,000,000 Jews killed throughout the Holocaust, and all of the victims of the Nazi reign of terror; (3) honors the legacy of the survivors of the Holocaust and of the Auschwitz extermination camp; (4) calls on the people of the United States to continue to work toward tolerance, peace, and justice and to continue to work to end all genocide and persecution; and (5) recommits to combatting all forms of anti-Semitism.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-01-21-pt1-PgS437-2

formal

single

homophobic

Ms. ROSEN (for herself, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Cramer, and Mr. Cardin) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 481 Whereas, during World War II, the Nazi regime and its collaborators systematically murdered 6,000,000 Jews and millions of other individuals; Whereas the Auschwitz concentration camp complex in Nazi- occupied Poland, which included a killing center at Birkenau, was the largest death camp complex established by the Nazi regime; Whereas, on January 27, 1945, the Auschwitz extermination camp was liberated by Allied Forces during World War II, after almost 5 years of murder, rape, and torture at the camp; Whereas nearly 1,300,000 innocent civilians were deported to Auschwitz from their homes across Eastern and Western Europe, particularly from Hungary, Poland, and France; Whereas nearly 1,100,000 innocent civilians were murdered at the Auschwitz extermination camp between 1940 and 1945; Whereas at least 960,000 of the nearly 1,100,000 murdered people were Jewish; Whereas the more than 100,000 other victims who perished at Auschwitz included non-Jewish Poles, Romani people, Soviet civilians and prisoners of war, Afro-Germans, Jehovah's Witnesses, people with disabilities, gay men and women, and other ethnic minorities; Whereas these innocent civilians were subjected to torture, forced labor, starvation, rape, medical experiments, and being separated from loved ones; Whereas the names of many of these innocent civilians who perished have been lost forever; Whereas the Auschwitz extermination camp symbolizes the extraordinary brutality of the Holocaust; Whereas the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum teaches about and promotes remembrance of the Holocaust; Whereas the people of the United States must never forget the terrible crimes against humanity committed at the Auschwitz extermination camp; Whereas the people of the United States must educate future generations to promote understanding of the dangers of intolerance in order to prevent similar injustices, including acts of violent anti-Semitism, from happening again; Whereas, in recent years, there has been an increase in the number and intensity of anti-Semitic incidents in the United States and around the world; Whereas hate crime statistics collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation demonstrate a marked rise in anti- Semitic incidents in the United States over the past several years, and the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti- Semitism of the Department of State recently stated that the Jewish people worldwide are facing the worst wave of anti- Semitism since the Holocaust; Whereas, in 2018, the United States experienced the single deadliest attack against the Jewish community in the history of the United States with the murder of 11 individuals at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Whereas the attack in Pittsburgh was followed in 2019 by a vicious anti-Semitic attack in Poway, California, and later, by a series of violent attacks against the Orthodox Jewish community in the State of New York; and Whereas, especially in a period of rising anti-Semitism, commemoration of the liberation of the Auschwitz extermination camp will instill in all people of the United States a greater awareness of the Holocaust and knowledge of the horrors brought upon by the Nazi regime's systematic murder of 6,000,000 Jews and millions of other innocent individuals: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) commemorates January 27, 2020, as the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz extermination camp by Allied Forces during World War II; (2) calls on all people of the United States to remember the 1,100,000 innocent victims murdered at the Auschwitz extermination camp as part of the Holocaust, the 6,000,000 Jews killed throughout the Holocaust, and all of the victims of the Nazi reign of terror; (3) honors the legacy of the survivors of the Holocaust and of the Auschwitz extermination camp; (4) calls on the people of the United States to continue to work toward tolerance, peace, and justice and to continue to work to end all genocide and persecution; and (5) recommits to combatting all forms of anti-Semitism.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-01-21-pt1-PgS437-2

formal

inner city

racist

SENATE RESOLUTION 482--SUPPORTING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF CATHOLIC SCHOOLS Mr. TOOMEY (for himself, Mr. Rubio, and Mr. Manchin) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: S. Res. 482 Whereas Catholic schools in the United States are internationally acclaimed for their academic excellence and provide students with more than just an exceptional scholastic education; Whereas Catholic schools instill a broad, values-added education emphasizing the lifelong development of moral, intellectual, physical, and social values in young people in the United States; Whereas Catholic schools serve the United States by providing a diverse student population, from all regions of the country and all socioeconomic backgrounds, a strong academic and moral foundation, and of that student population-- (1) 39 percent of students are from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds; and (2) 19 percent of students are from non-Catholic families; Whereas Catholic schools are an affordable option for parents, particularly in underserved urban areas; Whereas Catholic schools produce students who are strongly dedicated to their faith, values, families, and communities by providing an intellectually stimulating environment rich in spiritual, character, and moral development; Whereas Catholic schools are committed to community service, producing graduates who hold ``helping others'' as a core value; Whereas, during the 2018-2019 academic year in the United States, almost 1,800,000 students were enrolled in Catholic schools and the student-teacher ratio for Catholic schools was 12 to 1; Whereas the graduation rate of students from Catholic high schools is 99 percent, with 86 percent of graduates attending 4-year colleges; Whereas, in the 2005 pastoral message entitled ``Renewing Our Commitment to Catholic Elementary and Secondary Schools in the Third Millennium'', the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stated, ``Catholic schools are often the Church's most effective contribution to those families who are poor and disadvantaged, especially in poor inner city neighborhoods and rural areas. Catholic schools cultivate healthy interaction among the increasingly diverse populations of our society. In cities and rural areas, Catholic schools are often the only opportunity for economically disadvantaged young people to receive an education of quality that speaks to the development of the whole person. . . . Our Catholic schools have produced countless numbers of well-educated and moral citizens who are leaders in our civic and ecclesial communities.''; Whereas the week of January 26, 2020, to February 1, 2020, has been designated as ``National Catholic Schools Week'' by the National Catholic Educational Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and January 29, 2020, has been designated as ``National Appreciation Day for Catholic Schools''; Whereas National Catholic Schools Week was first established in 1974 and has been celebrated annually for the past 46 years; Whereas 30 percent of Catholic schools have waiting lists for admission, and new schools are opening across the United States; and Whereas the theme for National Catholic Schools Week 2020 is ``Catholic Schools: Learn. Serve. Lead. Succeed.'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) supports the goals of National Catholic Schools Week, an event-- (A) cosponsored by the National Catholic Educational Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; and (B) established to recognize the vital contributions of the thousands of Catholic elementary and secondary schools in the United States; (2) applauds the National Catholic Educational Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on the selection of a theme that all people can celebrate; and (3) supports-- (A) the dedication of Catholic schools, students, parents, and teachers across the United States to academic excellence; and (B) the key role that Catholic schools, students, parents, and teachers across the United States play in promoting and ensuring a brighter, stronger future for the United States.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-01-21-pt1-PgS438

formal

urban

racist

SENATE RESOLUTION 482--SUPPORTING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF CATHOLIC SCHOOLS Mr. TOOMEY (for himself, Mr. Rubio, and Mr. Manchin) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: S. Res. 482 Whereas Catholic schools in the United States are internationally acclaimed for their academic excellence and provide students with more than just an exceptional scholastic education; Whereas Catholic schools instill a broad, values-added education emphasizing the lifelong development of moral, intellectual, physical, and social values in young people in the United States; Whereas Catholic schools serve the United States by providing a diverse student population, from all regions of the country and all socioeconomic backgrounds, a strong academic and moral foundation, and of that student population-- (1) 39 percent of students are from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds; and (2) 19 percent of students are from non-Catholic families; Whereas Catholic schools are an affordable option for parents, particularly in underserved urban areas; Whereas Catholic schools produce students who are strongly dedicated to their faith, values, families, and communities by providing an intellectually stimulating environment rich in spiritual, character, and moral development; Whereas Catholic schools are committed to community service, producing graduates who hold ``helping others'' as a core value; Whereas, during the 2018-2019 academic year in the United States, almost 1,800,000 students were enrolled in Catholic schools and the student-teacher ratio for Catholic schools was 12 to 1; Whereas the graduation rate of students from Catholic high schools is 99 percent, with 86 percent of graduates attending 4-year colleges; Whereas, in the 2005 pastoral message entitled ``Renewing Our Commitment to Catholic Elementary and Secondary Schools in the Third Millennium'', the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stated, ``Catholic schools are often the Church's most effective contribution to those families who are poor and disadvantaged, especially in poor inner city neighborhoods and rural areas. Catholic schools cultivate healthy interaction among the increasingly diverse populations of our society. In cities and rural areas, Catholic schools are often the only opportunity for economically disadvantaged young people to receive an education of quality that speaks to the development of the whole person. . . . Our Catholic schools have produced countless numbers of well-educated and moral citizens who are leaders in our civic and ecclesial communities.''; Whereas the week of January 26, 2020, to February 1, 2020, has been designated as ``National Catholic Schools Week'' by the National Catholic Educational Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and January 29, 2020, has been designated as ``National Appreciation Day for Catholic Schools''; Whereas National Catholic Schools Week was first established in 1974 and has been celebrated annually for the past 46 years; Whereas 30 percent of Catholic schools have waiting lists for admission, and new schools are opening across the United States; and Whereas the theme for National Catholic Schools Week 2020 is ``Catholic Schools: Learn. Serve. Lead. Succeed.'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) supports the goals of National Catholic Schools Week, an event-- (A) cosponsored by the National Catholic Educational Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; and (B) established to recognize the vital contributions of the thousands of Catholic elementary and secondary schools in the United States; (2) applauds the National Catholic Educational Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on the selection of a theme that all people can celebrate; and (3) supports-- (A) the dedication of Catholic schools, students, parents, and teachers across the United States to academic excellence; and (B) the key role that Catholic schools, students, parents, and teachers across the United States play in promoting and ensuring a brighter, stronger future for the United States.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-01-21-pt1-PgS438

formal

XX

transphobic

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or votes objected to under clause 6 of rule XX. The House will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time.

2020-01-06

The SPEAKER pro tempore

House

CREC-2020-01-27-pt1-PgH540-6

formal

XX

transphobic

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 943) to authorize the Secretary of Education to award grants to eligible entities to carry out educational programs about the Holocaust, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.

2020-01-06

The SPEAKER pro tempore

House

CREC-2020-01-27-pt1-PgH553-4

formal

XX

transphobic

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Barragan). Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4704) to direct the Director of the National Science Foundation to support multidisciplinary research on the science of suicide, and to advance the knowledge and understanding of issues that may be associated with several aspects of suicide including intrinsic and extrinsic factors related to areas such as wellbeing, resilience, and vulnerability, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.

2020-01-06

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Barragan)

House

CREC-2020-01-27-pt1-PgH554-2

formal

terrorist

Islamophobic

The President, after sine die adjournment of the First Session of the 116th Congress, notified the Clerk of the House that on the following dates, he had approved and signed bills of the following titles: January 7, 2020: H.R. 1424. An Act to amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure the Secretary of Veterans Affairs permits the display of Fallen Soldier Displays in national cemeteries. January 17, 2020: H.R. 2385. An Act to permit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a grant program to conduct cemetery research and produce educational materials for the Veterans Legacy Program. January 24, 2020: H.R. 2476. An Act to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide funding to secure nonprofit facilities from terrorist attacks, and for other purposes.

2020-01-06

Unknown

House

CREC-2020-01-27-pt1-PgH569-2

formal

terrorist

Islamophobic

Cheryl L. Johnson, Clerk of the House, after sine die adjournment of the First Session of the 116th Congress, reported that on January 6, 2020, she presented to the President of the United States, for his approval, the following bills: H.R. 1424. An Act to amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure the Secretary of Veterans Affairs permits the display of Fallen Soldier Displays in national cemeteries. H.R. 2385. An Act to permit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a grant program to conduct cemetery research and produce educational materials for the Veterans Legacy Program. Cheryl L. Johnson, Clerk of the House, after sine die adjournment of the First Session of the 116th Congress, further reported that on January 14, 2020, she presented to the President of the United States, for his approval, the following bill: H.R. 2476. An Act to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide funding to secure nonprofit facilities from terrorist attacks, and for other purposes.

2020-01-06

Unknown

House

CREC-2020-01-27-pt1-PgH569

formal

terrorism

Islamophobic

(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) MR. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I am grateful to be an original cosponsor of H. Res. 814 to designate January 26 to February 1 as National School Choice Week. As the husband of a teacher, father of four, and grandfather of eight, I appreciate the importance of school choice. We must continue to support magnet, charter, traditional, public, private, and homeschools inspired by Zan Tyler across the country. Every year, I have the opportunity to meet with students and teachers and talk to them about their unique educational experiences and why they think school choice is important. I will be visiting schools this Friday to renew this discussion. What we have seen is too many top-down mandates from unelected Washington bureaucrats who do not know the needs of students like their parents, teachers, and local school boards do. The quality of our children's education is too important to rely on a one-size-fits-all approach. In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget September the 11th in the global war on terrorism with the courageous leadership of President Donald Trump.

2020-01-06

Unknown

House

CREC-2020-01-28-pt1-PgH578

formal

school choice

racist

(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) MR. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I am grateful to be an original cosponsor of H. Res. 814 to designate January 26 to February 1 as National School Choice Week. As the husband of a teacher, father of four, and grandfather of eight, I appreciate the importance of school choice. We must continue to support magnet, charter, traditional, public, private, and homeschools inspired by Zan Tyler across the country. Every year, I have the opportunity to meet with students and teachers and talk to them about their unique educational experiences and why they think school choice is important. I will be visiting schools this Friday to renew this discussion. What we have seen is too many top-down mandates from unelected Washington bureaucrats who do not know the needs of students like their parents, teachers, and local school boards do. The quality of our children's education is too important to rely on a one-size-fits-all approach. In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget September the 11th in the global war on terrorism with the courageous leadership of President Donald Trump.

2020-01-06

Unknown

House

CREC-2020-01-28-pt1-PgH578

formal

war on terror

Islamophobic

(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) MR. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I am grateful to be an original cosponsor of H. Res. 814 to designate January 26 to February 1 as National School Choice Week. As the husband of a teacher, father of four, and grandfather of eight, I appreciate the importance of school choice. We must continue to support magnet, charter, traditional, public, private, and homeschools inspired by Zan Tyler across the country. Every year, I have the opportunity to meet with students and teachers and talk to them about their unique educational experiences and why they think school choice is important. I will be visiting schools this Friday to renew this discussion. What we have seen is too many top-down mandates from unelected Washington bureaucrats who do not know the needs of students like their parents, teachers, and local school boards do. The quality of our children's education is too important to rely on a one-size-fits-all approach. In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget September the 11th in the global war on terrorism with the courageous leadership of President Donald Trump.

2020-01-06

Unknown

House

CREC-2020-01-28-pt1-PgH578

formal

war on terrorism

Islamophobic

(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) MR. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I am grateful to be an original cosponsor of H. Res. 814 to designate January 26 to February 1 as National School Choice Week. As the husband of a teacher, father of four, and grandfather of eight, I appreciate the importance of school choice. We must continue to support magnet, charter, traditional, public, private, and homeschools inspired by Zan Tyler across the country. Every year, I have the opportunity to meet with students and teachers and talk to them about their unique educational experiences and why they think school choice is important. I will be visiting schools this Friday to renew this discussion. What we have seen is too many top-down mandates from unelected Washington bureaucrats who do not know the needs of students like their parents, teachers, and local school boards do. The quality of our children's education is too important to rely on a one-size-fits-all approach. In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget September the 11th in the global war on terrorism with the courageous leadership of President Donald Trump.

2020-01-06

Unknown

House

CREC-2020-01-28-pt1-PgH578

formal

XX

transphobic

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or votes objected to under clause 6 of rule XX. The House will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time.

2020-01-06

The SPEAKER pro tempore

House

CREC-2020-01-28-pt1-PgH588

formal

XX

transphobic

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4331) to modify and reauthorize the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.

2020-01-06

The SPEAKER pro tempore

House

CREC-2020-01-28-pt1-PgH606

formal

terrorism

Islamophobic

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this past December, H.R. 1865, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, was enacted into law as Public Law 116-94. I want to take a moment to offer some clarity regarding section 903 of division J of the Act, which is a modified version of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019. I commend the Republican and Democratic Senators who have dedicated their time to pursuing justice for American victims of terrorism. We all want these victims to have their day in court and to be appropriately compensated. It is also important that we do so in a manner that does not do more harm than good. That is the balance that was sought in section 903 on a bipartisan basis. One component of section 903 is a provision that enables the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, PA and PLO, to conduct certain activities in the United States ``exclusively for the purpose of conducting official business'' and activities ``ancillary'' to those listed in the provision without consenting to personal jurisdiction in civil cases. The provision was included because Senators of both parties understand that it is in our national interest to permit certain activities related to the official representation of the PA and PLO. Having been part of the negotiation that resulted in this language, I believe it is important that we have a clear understanding of the types of activities that are considered ``ancillary'' to the conduct of official business. While the official business of any foreign mission necessarily includes meetings with Members of Congress and their staff, representatives of the executive branch, and other public officials, ancillary activities are those which may not be essential for the minimal functioning of the mission but which support the mission's primary operations. By way of example, I am confident that every Member of this body would, as I do, consider a public statement, the issuance of a press release, or a meeting or public appearance--while not essential--to be ancillary to his or her primary functions as a U.S. Senator and would reject any attempt to define such activities otherwise. That is also why, with regard to the PA and PLO, while we may or may not agree with the statements of its representatives, the law contemplates that its representatives may meet with advocates regarding relevant issues, make public statements, and otherwise engage in public advocacy and civil society activities that are ancillary to the conduct of official business without consenting to personal jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction is provided for elsewhere in section 903. The message in this bill is clear: Congress is committed to pursuing justice for American victims of terrorism while ensuring appropriate standards regarding the ability of foreign missions to conduct official business in the United States. This is a solution that protects U.S. national interests, and I thank the Senators on both sides of the aisle who have worked together to find a way forward on this measure.

2020-01-06

Mr. LEAHY

Senate

CREC-2020-01-28-pt1-PgS627-3

formal

based

white supremacist

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President I want to take a few moments to discuss an issue that has garnered some attention in recent months, which is our relations with the Government of the Philippines, including President Duterte's counter-drug strategy and his government's treatment of those who have openly criticized that strategy. It is important to first recount the long history of friendship and strategic cooperation between the United States and the Philippines. Family and cultural ties that extend back many generations bind us together, as do our shared goals in East Asia and the Pacific. Our Armed Forces regularly engage in joint exercises to enhance regional security. Despite our differences, relations between our two countries are strong and based on mutual respect. We should also extend our deepest sympathies to those harmed by the recent eruption of the Taal volcano in Luzon. It has displaced tens of thousands of families and destroyed the livelihoods of many. The U.S. Agency for International Development and international organizations that receive U.S. funding like the World Food Programme are responding with humanitarian aid to those in need, which I and others in Congress strongly support. One of the manifestations of our longstanding, close relations with the Philippines is the assistance we provide annually to promote a wide range of interests there, from humanitarian and economic assistance to military assistance, which in fiscal year 2019 totaled more than $150 million. However, as is the case for other recipients of U.S. assistance, those funds are not an entitlement and they are not a blank check. For example, in the Philippines they may not be used to support police counter-drug operations. We condemn the thousands of extrajudicial executions of suspected drug users and drug-traffickers by police and their collaborators. Such a strategy is not consistent with due process and the rule of law, nor an effective way to combat the trafficking and abuse of illegal drugs that every country, including the United States, is struggling with. We do support treatment programs for Filipinos suffering from drug addiction. We also stand strongly in support of freedom of expression, whether in the Philippines or anywhere else, including in our own country, and that, as well as President Duterte's counter-drug strategy, is what underlies our currentdisagreement with his government that is illustrated, most recently, by the passage without opposition of S. Res. 142, which condemns the imprisonment of Senator Leila De Lima and calls for her immediate release. It also calls on the Government of the Philippines to guarantee freedom of the press and to drop charges against Maria Ressa and the online news network Rappler. As said by Senator Durbin who, like I, cosponsored that resolution, ``[i]n the end, [De Lima's] freedom and the end of government harassment against journalists like Maria Ressa will be important tests of whether cherished democratic norms we share with our long-standing Filipino allies will be respected by President Duterte.'' The response of the Duterte government was regrettable, albeit not uncharacteristic. Like Senator Durbin, I have become accustomed to being on the receiving end of baseless personal attacks by President Duterte's spokesman, as if those attacks might intimidate us or boost domestic support for his government. Rather than respond substantively to legitimate concerns about extrajudicial killings, impunity, and freedom of expression that I, Senator Durbin, Senator Markey, our Democratic and Republican colleagues, the U.S. State Department, the United Nations, and respected human rights organizations have raised over the years, we are told that S. Res. 142 is based on ``bogus narratives . . . promoted by Duterte's usual antagonists.'' We are accused of being ``prejudiced'' and ``misguided,'' our support for Senator De Lima ``a direct and shameless affront to the Republic of the Philippines, which has long ceased to be a colony of the United States.'' Our actions are called ``brazen and intrusive to the dignity of an independent, democratic and sovereign state'' which would ``not be bullied by any foreign country or by its officials, especially by misinformed and gullible politicians who grandstand at our expense.'' Going a step further, the Duterte government inexplicably threatened to deny visas to Americans who seek to visit the Philippines and who have nothing to do with these concerns. Such vitriolic hyperbole is barely deserving of a response, but suffice it to say that none of us remotely regards the Philippines as a colony of the United States, nor are our concerns about the treatment of Senator De Lima and Maria Ressa an intrusion of the Philippines' sovereignty, which we respect. S. Res. 142 is based on consistent reporting by the Trump administration's State Department, the United Nations, and other credible observers, including in the Philippines, who share the conviction that defending freedom of expression has nothing to do with sovereignty. To the contrary, it is everyone's responsibility, wherever it is denied. If there is any ``intrusion of dignity'' or ``shameless affront'' in this instance, it is the harassment, threats, false charges, and imprisonment of those who have dared to criticize the Duterte government's lawless counter-drug strategy. None of us here, nor in the Philippines, has an interest in prolonging this dispute. To the contrary, we want to enhance our cooperation in a multitude of areas of common interest--from maritime security to human trafficking to climate change. What 100 U.S. Senators--Republicans and Democrats--have urged is succinctly spelled out in the resolution. Rather than deny visas to Americans, many of whom have family in the Philippines, and rather than resort to ad hominem attacks, there is, as Senator Durbin has said, ``an easy and honorable way forward.'' As I have said for months, we are not aware of any credible evidence that Senator De Lima, who has been detained for nearly 3 years, is guilty of the crimes she has been accused of. If such evidence exists, it should be promptly produced in a public trial, and she should be provided the opportunity to refute it. Otherwise she should be released. As a former prosecutor, I know that is the minimum to which anyone accused of a crime is entitled. And respected, courageous investigative journalists like Maria Ressa should be able to publish without fear of retaliation. There is no surer way to destroy the underpinnings of democracy than by using threats and unlawful arrest to silence the press.

2020-01-06

Mr. LEAHY

Senate

CREC-2020-01-28-pt1-PgS627-4

formal

entitlement

racist

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President I want to take a few moments to discuss an issue that has garnered some attention in recent months, which is our relations with the Government of the Philippines, including President Duterte's counter-drug strategy and his government's treatment of those who have openly criticized that strategy. It is important to first recount the long history of friendship and strategic cooperation between the United States and the Philippines. Family and cultural ties that extend back many generations bind us together, as do our shared goals in East Asia and the Pacific. Our Armed Forces regularly engage in joint exercises to enhance regional security. Despite our differences, relations between our two countries are strong and based on mutual respect. We should also extend our deepest sympathies to those harmed by the recent eruption of the Taal volcano in Luzon. It has displaced tens of thousands of families and destroyed the livelihoods of many. The U.S. Agency for International Development and international organizations that receive U.S. funding like the World Food Programme are responding with humanitarian aid to those in need, which I and others in Congress strongly support. One of the manifestations of our longstanding, close relations with the Philippines is the assistance we provide annually to promote a wide range of interests there, from humanitarian and economic assistance to military assistance, which in fiscal year 2019 totaled more than $150 million. However, as is the case for other recipients of U.S. assistance, those funds are not an entitlement and they are not a blank check. For example, in the Philippines they may not be used to support police counter-drug operations. We condemn the thousands of extrajudicial executions of suspected drug users and drug-traffickers by police and their collaborators. Such a strategy is not consistent with due process and the rule of law, nor an effective way to combat the trafficking and abuse of illegal drugs that every country, including the United States, is struggling with. We do support treatment programs for Filipinos suffering from drug addiction. We also stand strongly in support of freedom of expression, whether in the Philippines or anywhere else, including in our own country, and that, as well as President Duterte's counter-drug strategy, is what underlies our currentdisagreement with his government that is illustrated, most recently, by the passage without opposition of S. Res. 142, which condemns the imprisonment of Senator Leila De Lima and calls for her immediate release. It also calls on the Government of the Philippines to guarantee freedom of the press and to drop charges against Maria Ressa and the online news network Rappler. As said by Senator Durbin who, like I, cosponsored that resolution, ``[i]n the end, [De Lima's] freedom and the end of government harassment against journalists like Maria Ressa will be important tests of whether cherished democratic norms we share with our long-standing Filipino allies will be respected by President Duterte.'' The response of the Duterte government was regrettable, albeit not uncharacteristic. Like Senator Durbin, I have become accustomed to being on the receiving end of baseless personal attacks by President Duterte's spokesman, as if those attacks might intimidate us or boost domestic support for his government. Rather than respond substantively to legitimate concerns about extrajudicial killings, impunity, and freedom of expression that I, Senator Durbin, Senator Markey, our Democratic and Republican colleagues, the U.S. State Department, the United Nations, and respected human rights organizations have raised over the years, we are told that S. Res. 142 is based on ``bogus narratives . . . promoted by Duterte's usual antagonists.'' We are accused of being ``prejudiced'' and ``misguided,'' our support for Senator De Lima ``a direct and shameless affront to the Republic of the Philippines, which has long ceased to be a colony of the United States.'' Our actions are called ``brazen and intrusive to the dignity of an independent, democratic and sovereign state'' which would ``not be bullied by any foreign country or by its officials, especially by misinformed and gullible politicians who grandstand at our expense.'' Going a step further, the Duterte government inexplicably threatened to deny visas to Americans who seek to visit the Philippines and who have nothing to do with these concerns. Such vitriolic hyperbole is barely deserving of a response, but suffice it to say that none of us remotely regards the Philippines as a colony of the United States, nor are our concerns about the treatment of Senator De Lima and Maria Ressa an intrusion of the Philippines' sovereignty, which we respect. S. Res. 142 is based on consistent reporting by the Trump administration's State Department, the United Nations, and other credible observers, including in the Philippines, who share the conviction that defending freedom of expression has nothing to do with sovereignty. To the contrary, it is everyone's responsibility, wherever it is denied. If there is any ``intrusion of dignity'' or ``shameless affront'' in this instance, it is the harassment, threats, false charges, and imprisonment of those who have dared to criticize the Duterte government's lawless counter-drug strategy. None of us here, nor in the Philippines, has an interest in prolonging this dispute. To the contrary, we want to enhance our cooperation in a multitude of areas of common interest--from maritime security to human trafficking to climate change. What 100 U.S. Senators--Republicans and Democrats--have urged is succinctly spelled out in the resolution. Rather than deny visas to Americans, many of whom have family in the Philippines, and rather than resort to ad hominem attacks, there is, as Senator Durbin has said, ``an easy and honorable way forward.'' As I have said for months, we are not aware of any credible evidence that Senator De Lima, who has been detained for nearly 3 years, is guilty of the crimes she has been accused of. If such evidence exists, it should be promptly produced in a public trial, and she should be provided the opportunity to refute it. Otherwise she should be released. As a former prosecutor, I know that is the minimum to which anyone accused of a crime is entitled. And respected, courageous investigative journalists like Maria Ressa should be able to publish without fear of retaliation. There is no surer way to destroy the underpinnings of democracy than by using threats and unlawful arrest to silence the press.

2020-01-06

Mr. LEAHY

Senate

CREC-2020-01-28-pt1-PgS627-4

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, the impeachment trial of President Trump has devolved into a parade of last-minute red herrings meant to distract this body from the issue at hand. The near-hysteria over books, boredom, and beef jerky has provided a convenient vehicle for the House managers, who are trying their best to peddle outrage as evidence. We learned nothing new from the House managers' presentations, but outside the Senate Chamber, they have been doing their best to convince us that we are one ``bombshell'' away from, at last, having all the elements needed for a speedy conviction. These efforts to keep unfounded allegations in the limelight have not gone unnoticed by those who should be commanding our attention: the American people. Outside the beltway, Americans have grown weary of trials and talking points. They have heard enough, and they have had enough. Taking that feedback into consideration, I thought it might be helpful to offer an update on what we could be focusing on instead of this farcical partisan grudge match. Behind the scenes, we are limping along as best we can, but our focus is necessarily distracted from regular business. Before our time was monopolized by impeachment, the Senate was making wonderful progress on filling the Federal bench with well-qualified, constitutionalist judges. When we weren't interviewing those nominees, members of the Judiciary Committee spent time hearing testimony on privacy, competition, and the crisis on our southern border. Before impeachment, Senators serving on the Veterans' Affairs Committee were hard at work considering a comprehensive mental health bill that would strengthen veteran mental health and suicide prevention programs. My own IMPROVE Act is part of this effort. We were also working on the IT Reform Act, which would improve information technology projects at the VA, and the Network of Support Act, which would help VA officials guide veterans through the emotional upheaval of transitioning between Active Duty and civilian life. We were doing all of this in addition to our continued oversight of the VA MISSION Act, and check-ins on struggling clinics such as the one in Murfreesboro, TN, which just reduced bed space for veterans struggling with opiate addiction and thoughts of suicide. This Thursday, we have an Armed Services Committee hearing on the U.S.' role in AFRICOM. When I visited with our troops in Djibouti and Somalia at the end of last year, I saw firsthand the importance of our advisory support on the African continent. Drawing down resources or personnel in AFRICOM would harm our position as we compete with Russia and China--but we won't have much time to discuss this potentially disastrous change. Every day, work grinds to a halt at 1:00 p.m., so that we can sit in our seats in the Senate Chamber and focus on the impeachment trial. We could be paying attention to the full-blown health crisis plaguing our rural communities. Since 2010, 118 rural hospitals have shut their doors. Fourteen of those facilities were in my home State of Tennessee. Between these hospital closures, and high drug prices, there is enough work to be done in the health care sector alone to keep us busy through Christmas. Mister President, if Tennessee is a good test group for the rest of the Nation--and it usually is--I can tell you that when asked to choose between discussing impeachment politics and real world problems, the American people are much more worried about trade, transportation, and manufacturing, and how evolving policy initiatives will affect prices at the grocery store. I would encourage my colleagues to remember the cost of indulging these proceedings and to listen to their constituents back home and not the breathless coverage that dominates the 24 hour news cycle.

2020-01-06

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Senate

CREC-2020-01-28-pt1-PgS629-2

formal

single

homophobic

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, H. Con. Res. 83 directs the President to terminate the use of U.S. Armed Forces to engage in hostilities against Iran, unless Congress has authorized the use of military force against Iran or such use is necessary to defend against an imminent armed attack. H. Con. Res. 83 was agreed to in the House of Representatives on January 9, 2020 and received in the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on January 13, 2020. The War Powers Resolution, PL 93-148, has special procedures underscoring the privileged nature of a concurrent resolution like H. Con. Res. 83. Section 1546(c) of the War Powers Resolution requires that once a privileged concurrent resolution such as H. Con. Res. 83 has been passed by the House, it must be referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and ``shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days.'' Fifteen calendardays from January 13 is today, January 28, 2020. Under the law, the concurrent resolution may be reported out with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or no recommendation at all, but it must be reported out. Unfortunately, it appears that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee majority leadership has decided to allow the 15 calendar days to lapse without taking action on H. Con. Res. 83. This failure to act leaves a statutory obligation unfulfilled. I understand that the chairman is basing this inaction primarily on the contention that a concurrent resolution under 50 U.S.C. 1544(c) may be privileged only if it uses the word ``remove'' or the phrase ``removal of United States Armed Forces engaged in hostilities,'' rather than ``terminate'' or ``terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities'' as used in H. Con. Res. 83. The argument appears to be that the use of ``removed'' in 1544(c) of the War Powers Resolution eliminates the possibility of privilege if any other terminology is used, regardless of functional equivalency. This argument suggests that ``removal'' is a term of art required for privilege. The approach is unjustifiably restrictive. Treating ``removal'' as a term of art required for privilege is inconsistent with the overarching purpose of the War Powers Resolution and without support in either the statutory framework or legislative history. It also undermines Senate and congressional prerogatives. The purpose of the War Powers Resolution was for Congress to reconfirm and reassert its constitutional powers over ``undeclared'' wars. The availability of a privileged and binding resolution to force a President to stop using U.S. Armed Forces in hostilities is central to that purpose. Limiting such privilege to a single phrase or word is inconsistent with this reassertion of congressional powers and is neither a feature of the statute nor its legislative history. The statutory framework of the War Powers Resolution does not support the assertion that ``removal'' or ``removal from hostilities'' are terms of art that are required for and exclusive to the availability of privilege. To the contrary, those terms are not defined in law; nor is there any reference in the statute to a military or other usage of those phrases to suggest that they are terms of art. The absence of statutorily mandated language for privilege in the War Powers Resolution directly contrasts with many other statutes in which Congress expressly requires specific language for privilege to attach. For example, in contrast to the War Powers Resolution, section 130(f) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, PL 83-703, section 101 of the Arms Export Control Act, PL 90-629, and section 216(c) of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, PL 115-44 all require specific text for privileged resolutions and provide that text in quotations in the statute. Clearly, as evidenced by laws enacted before and after the War Powers Resolution, Congress knows how to require the use of unique, statutorily mandated language for privilege to apply. The fact that it did not do so in the War Powers Resolution demonstrates that there was no intent to limit privilege to use of a single word or phrase. Further, the legislative record of the War Powers Resolution does not support the assertion that there is an exclusive connection between the use of ``removal'' and the availability of privilege. To the contrary, the record indicates that ``remove'' and ``terminate'' were used synonymously. The record is replete with the interchangeable usage of synonymous terms consistent with a cessation of the use of U.S. forces in hostilities. For example, House Report 93-287 uses no less than seven terms in this regard, including ``conclude,'' ``disengage,'' ``remove,'' ``terminate,'' ``abandon such action,'' and ``stop.'' In fact, the conferees even used ``terminate'' to describe the privileged resolution envisioned in 1544(c), clearly demonstrating that these terms were considered to be functionally equivalent for purposes of War Powers. ``The House joint resolution provided that use of United States Armed Forces by the President without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization could be terminated by Congress through the use of a concurrent resolution. The Senate amendment provided for such termination by a bill or joint resolution.'' H. Rept. 93-547, Conference Report to H.J. Res. 542. This legislative history, in tandem with a statutory construct that does not require a term of art, demonstrates that the insistence on such a term for privilege is misguided. Finally, strictly limiting privilege to a resolution that uses ``remove'' is inconsistent with Senate and congressional perogatives. The purpose of the War Powers Resolution--reasserting the power of Congress over undeclared wars--can be vindicated only if the executive branch and its supporters in the Senate cannot use committee or floor procedure to bottle up a resolution consistent with both the purpose and construct of the War Powers Resolution. Reading into the statute a requirement for specific terminology where no such requirement exists unjustifiably restricts Senate action and limits the reassertion of congressional authority over War Powers. For the reasons stated above, I urge the chairman to immediately take the necessary steps to ensure full compliance with the law.

2020-01-06

Mr. MENENDEZ

Senate

CREC-2020-01-28-pt1-PgS629-3

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the career and service of Carl Adrian, who is retiring this month after more than 16 years as the president of the Tri-Cities Economic Development Council in my home State of Washington. Carl has devoted his career to making the Tri-Cities an economic powerhouse, and throughout his time as the longest serving president of TRIDEC, Carl Adrian accomplished so many important things for the region. Thanks in part to his work, the Tri-Cities of today is very different from the Tri-Cities of 16 years ago. Under Carl's leadership, more than 1,300 businesses set up shop in the Tri-Cities and more than 35,000 new jobs were created. These business leaders weren't drawn to the Tri-Cities just because of the weather or the excellent Washington wine; they came because Carl helped create new opportunities and supported significant investments for employers in the region. I have been so pleased to partner with Carl and TRIDEC on so many endeavors over the years. When it comes to Hanford, Carl saw the site as history that should be celebrated and remembered. We worked together to establish the Manhattan Project Historical Park in Richland, which honors the more than 51,000 Hanford workers who helped drive our country's nuclear program and remembers those whose lands were taken when the facilities were built. The site is helping to educate new generations and bringing new visitors to the Tri-Cities. More than 10,000 people visit every year from all 50 States and more than 80 countries. Carl also knows how important it is that we get Hanford cleaned up. He has been a stalwart advocate for the funding we need to clean up the site. And I share his strong belief that the Federal Government has a moral obligation to the Tri-Cities and our State to make sure the Hanford cleanup and its workers receive Federal funding they need. Throughout his time at TRIDEC, Carl has worked on so many other projects of importance to the Tri-Cities. He has been one of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's strongest supporters, working tirelessly to make sure Congress and the Department of Energy recognize the importance of the lab to our region and country. As a result of his advocacy, the lab has experienced significant growth, particularly in energy innovation including grid security, battery storage and clean energy technologies. I was also proud to work with Carl and TRIDEC to expand the Tri-City Regional Airport. His leadership enabled the airport to bring non-stop daily flights from San Francisco, Minneapolis, and Chicago to the region, along with many other destinations. These flights have helped grow the attractiveness of southeastern Washington and allowed many more people to see what the Tri-Cities have to offer. For more than 16 years, Carl Adrian's leadership of the Tri-Cities Economic Development Council has made an impact throughout Southeastern Washington and our entire State. We are all grateful for his hard work and many contributions. Congratulations on your retirement, Carl. I wish you and Rheta great success as you transition to the next chapter of your life.

2020-01-06

Ms. CANTWELL

Senate

CREC-2020-01-28-pt1-PgS631

formal

Chicago

racist

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the career and service of Carl Adrian, who is retiring this month after more than 16 years as the president of the Tri-Cities Economic Development Council in my home State of Washington. Carl has devoted his career to making the Tri-Cities an economic powerhouse, and throughout his time as the longest serving president of TRIDEC, Carl Adrian accomplished so many important things for the region. Thanks in part to his work, the Tri-Cities of today is very different from the Tri-Cities of 16 years ago. Under Carl's leadership, more than 1,300 businesses set up shop in the Tri-Cities and more than 35,000 new jobs were created. These business leaders weren't drawn to the Tri-Cities just because of the weather or the excellent Washington wine; they came because Carl helped create new opportunities and supported significant investments for employers in the region. I have been so pleased to partner with Carl and TRIDEC on so many endeavors over the years. When it comes to Hanford, Carl saw the site as history that should be celebrated and remembered. We worked together to establish the Manhattan Project Historical Park in Richland, which honors the more than 51,000 Hanford workers who helped drive our country's nuclear program and remembers those whose lands were taken when the facilities were built. The site is helping to educate new generations and bringing new visitors to the Tri-Cities. More than 10,000 people visit every year from all 50 States and more than 80 countries. Carl also knows how important it is that we get Hanford cleaned up. He has been a stalwart advocate for the funding we need to clean up the site. And I share his strong belief that the Federal Government has a moral obligation to the Tri-Cities and our State to make sure the Hanford cleanup and its workers receive Federal funding they need. Throughout his time at TRIDEC, Carl has worked on so many other projects of importance to the Tri-Cities. He has been one of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's strongest supporters, working tirelessly to make sure Congress and the Department of Energy recognize the importance of the lab to our region and country. As a result of his advocacy, the lab has experienced significant growth, particularly in energy innovation including grid security, battery storage and clean energy technologies. I was also proud to work with Carl and TRIDEC to expand the Tri-City Regional Airport. His leadership enabled the airport to bring non-stop daily flights from San Francisco, Minneapolis, and Chicago to the region, along with many other destinations. These flights have helped grow the attractiveness of southeastern Washington and allowed many more people to see what the Tri-Cities have to offer. For more than 16 years, Carl Adrian's leadership of the Tri-Cities Economic Development Council has made an impact throughout Southeastern Washington and our entire State. We are all grateful for his hard work and many contributions. Congratulations on your retirement, Carl. I wish you and Rheta great success as you transition to the next chapter of your life.

2020-01-06

Ms. CANTWELL

Senate

CREC-2020-01-28-pt1-PgS631

formal

public school

racist

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Orly Munzing, an extraordinary Vermonter and longtime advocate for family farms and resilient communities. Orly founded Strolling of the Heifers in 2002 in Brattleboro, VT, to help bring awareness to the plight of small dairy farms. During Orly's tenure as executive director of Strolling of the Heifers, she transformed a small town parade into a widely renowned event celebrating sustainable agriculture and family farms. I am proud to have marched in many of these parades over the last 17 years to celebrate our farms and our communities in Vermont and around the country. Under Orly's leadership, Strolling of the Heifers has continued to expand, now including the farm-to-table culinary apprenticeship program to provide underserved community members with the vital skills necessary for obtaining good quality jobs in the food sector. In addition to Strolling of the Heifers, Orly founded the nationally recognized Locavore Index, the first tool to measure the growth of the local food movement. She also created Windham Grows, a program to provide valuable skills and resources to farm and food entrepreneurs. Just this past year, Orly received the Innovation & Spirit Award from the Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility as recognition of this work. Prior to all these important accomplishments, Orly worked for 24 years as a learning specialist in the public school system and consulted with teachers on cutting-edge educational techniques. For decades, she has been a truly tireless champion who has made significant strides to create more healthy and prosperous rural communities. At a time of increased recognition of the profound impact agriculture and food have on the vibrancy of rural lands, our health, and the health of the planet, it is heartening to know that dedicated, passionate people like Orly are making a real difference in our communities. Mr. President, I am not only enormously grateful for all of Orly's many contributions over the years, but I am also proud to call her a good friend. I wish her all the best in her retirement and know she will continue to fight for more environmentally sound and fundamentally just communities.

2020-01-06

Mr. SANDERS

Senate

CREC-2020-01-28-pt1-PgS634-2

formal

single

homophobic

The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-3801. A communication from the Congressional Review Coordinator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``User Fees for Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection Services'' ((RIN0579-AD77) (Docket No. APHIS-2013-0021)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 17, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-3802. A communication from the General Counsel of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Rules of Practice and Procedure; Civil Money Penalty Inflation Adjustment'' (RIN2590-AB07) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 21, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-3803. A communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to operation of the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) for fiscal year 2019; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-3804. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Control of Firearms, Guns, Ammunition and Related Articles the President Determines No Longer Warrant Control Under the United States Munitions List (USML)'' (RIN0694-AF47) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 17, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-3805. A communication from the Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on appropriations legislation within seven days of enactment; to the Committee on the Budget. EC-3806. A communication from the Director of Congressional Affairs, Office of the General Counsel, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Adjustment of Civil Penalties for Inflation for Fiscal Year 2020'' (RIN3150-AK11) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 21, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3807. A communication from the Director of Congressional Affairs, Office of the General Counsel, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Revision of the NRC Enforcement Policy'' (NRC-2019-0242) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 21, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3808. A communication from the Director of Congressional Affairs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Supplemental Guidance Regarding the Chromium-Coated Zirconium Alloy Fuel Cladding Accident Tolerant Fuel Concept'' (NUREG-0800) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 21, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3809. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs; Program Integrity Enhancements to the Provider Enrollment Process'' (RIN0938- AS84) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 17, 2020; to the Committee on Finance. EC-3810. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, the certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, parts, and components abroad controlled under Category I of the U.S. Munitions List of 5.56mm and 7.62mm automatic rifles, sound suppressors, and major components to Estonia in the amount of $1,000,000 or more (Transmittal No. DDTC 19-101); to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-3811. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, the certification of a proposed license amendment for the export of defense articles, including technical data and defense services, to Italy to support the manufacture, production, test, and inspection of wing assemblies and sub-assemblies for the F-35 aircraft in the amount of $100,000,000 or more (Transmittal No. DDTC 19-062); to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-3812. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for the Department's Agency Financial Report for fiscal year 2019; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-3813. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Reexamination of the Comparative Standards and Procedures for Licensing Noncommercial Educational Broadcast Stations and Low Power FM Stations, Report and Order'' ((MB Docket No. 19-3) (FCC 19-127)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 21, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3814. A communication from the Chairman of the Office of Proceedings, Surface Transportation Board, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Civil Monetary Penalties - 2020 Adjustment'' (Docket No. EP 716) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 21, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3815. A communication from the Secretary of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Sustainability Plan for the Solar Regional Test Centers''; to the Committee on Appropriations. EC-3816. A communication from the Acting General Counsel of the National Credit Union Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Inflation Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties'' (RIN3133-AF09) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 23, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-3817. A communication from the Secretary of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Activities, Progress and Plans: September 2016 to August 2019''; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-3818. A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Student Loan Debt Forgiveness'' (Rev. Proc. 2020-11) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 22, 2020; to the Committee on Finance. EC-3819. A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Transfers of Certain Property by U.S. Persons to Partnerships with Related Foreign Partners'' (RIN1545-BM95) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 22, 2020; to the Committee on Finance. EC-3820. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Department's Annual Report of Interdiction of Aircraft Engaged in Illicit Drug Trafficking; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-3821. A communication from the Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the cost of response and recovery efforts for FEMA-3426-EM in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico having exceeded the $5,000,000 limit for a single emergency declaration; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-3822. A communication from the District of Columbia Auditor, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled, ``Enrollment Projections in D.C. Public Schools: Controls Needed to Ensure Funding Equity''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-3823. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area'' (RIN0648-BI85) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 23, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3824. A communication from the Acting Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts'' (16 CFR Part 1.98) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 23, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3825. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone for Fireworks Display; Spa Creek, Annapolis, MD'' ((RIN1625- AA00) (Docket No. USCG-2019-0846)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 22, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3826. A communication from the Attorney, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone; Ohio River, Owensboro, KY'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No. USCG- 2019-0820)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 22, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3827. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone; Morro Bay Harbor Entrance; Morro Bay, California'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No. USCG-2019-0963)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 22, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3828. A communication from the Attorney, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone; Neches River, Beaumont, TX'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No. USCG-2019-0614)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 22, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3829. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone; Straits of Mackinac, MI'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No. USCG- 2019-0965)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 22, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3830. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zones; Waterway Training Areas, Captain of the Port Maryland - National Capital Region Zone'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No. USCG-2019-0765)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 22, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3831. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Special Local Regulations; Sector Upper Mississippi River Annual and Recurring Marine Events Update'' ((RIN1625-AA08) (Docket No. USCG-2018-1008)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 22, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3832. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Special Local Regulation; St. Thomas Lighted Boat Parade, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Island'' ((RIN1625-AA08) (Docket No. USCG-2019- 0945)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 22, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3833. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Regulated Navigation Area; Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood Waterways EPA Superfund Cleanup Site, Commencement Bay, Tacoma, WA'' ((RIN1625-AA11) (Docket No. USCG-2018-0970)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 22, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3834. A communication from the Attorney, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Regulated Navigation Area; Monongahela, Allegheny, and Ohio Rivers, Pittsburgh, PA'' ((RIN1625-AA11) (Docket No. USCG-2019-0118)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 22, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3835. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Regulated Navigation Area; Lake Washington, Seattle, WA'' ((RIN1625- AA11) (Docket No. USCG-2019-0296)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 22, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3836. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.3555 Multiple Ownership'' ((MB Doc. No. 14-50) (47 CFR Part 73.3555)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 21, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-01-28-pt1-PgS635

formal

welfare

racist

Mr. TILLIS (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Crapo, Ms. Harris, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Booker, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Markey) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 487 Whereas thousands of children in the United States have been abducted from the United States by parents, separating those children from their parents who remain in the United States; Whereas it is illegal under section 1204 of title 18, United States Code, to remove, or attempt to remove, a child from the United States or retain a child (who has been in the United States) outside of the United States with the intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights; Whereas more than 11,500 children were reported abducted from the United States between 2008 and 2018; Whereas, during 2018, 1 or more cases of international parental child abduction involving children who are citizens of the United States were identified in 107 countries around the world; Whereas the United States is a party to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, done at The Hague, October 25, 1980 (TIAS 11670) (referred to in this preamble as the ``Hague Convention on Abduction''), which-- (1) supports the prompt return of wrongly removed or retained children; and (2) calls for all participating parties to respect parental custody rights; Whereas the majority of children who were abducted from the United States have yet to be reunited with their custodial parents; Whereas, during 2018, Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Jordan, Lebanon, Peru, and the United Arab Emirates were identified under the Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act of 2014 (22 U.S.C. 9101 et seq.) as engaging in a pattern of noncompliance (as defined in section 3 of that Act (22 U.S.C. 9101)); Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that family abduction-- (1) is a form of child abuse with potentially ``devastating consequences for a child'', which may include negative impacts on the physical and mental well-being of the child; and (2) can cause a child to ``experience a loss of community and stability, leading to loneliness, anger, and fear of abandonment''; Whereas, according to the 2010 Report on Compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction by the Department of State, research shows that an abducted child is at risk of significant short- and long-term problems, including ``anxiety, eating problems, nightmares, mood swings, sleep disturbances, [and] aggressive behavior''; Whereas international parental child abduction has devastating emotional consequences for the child and for the parent from whom the child is separated; Whereas the United States has a history of promoting child welfare through institutions including-- (1) in the Department of Health and Human Services, the Children's Bureau of the Administration for Children and Families; and (2) in the Department of State, the Office of Children's Issues of the Bureau of Consular Affairs; Whereas Congress has signaled a commitment to ending international parental child abduction by enacting the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (22 U.S.C. 9001 et seq.), the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-173), which enacted section 1204 of title 18, United States Code, and the Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act of 2014 (22 U.S.C. 9101 et seq.); Whereas the Senate adopted Senate Resolution 543, 112th Congress, on December 4, 2012, condemning the international abduction of children; Whereas the Senate adopted Senate Resolution 431, 115th Congress, on April 19, 2018, to raise awareness of, and opposition to, international parental child abduction; Whereas all 50 States and the District of Columbia have enacted laws criminalizing parental kidnapping; Whereas, in 2018, the Prevention Branch of the Office of Children's Issues of the Department of State-- (1) fielded more than 5,200 inquiries from the general public relating to preventing a child from being removed from the United States; and (2) enrolled more than 4,700 children in the Children's Passport Issuance Alert Program, which-- (A) is one of the most important tools of the Department of State for preventing international parental child abductions; and (B) allows the Office of Children's Issues to contact the enrolling parent or legal guardian to verify whether the parental consent requirement has been met when a passport application has been submitted for an enrolled child; Whereas the Department of State cannot track the ultimate destination of a child through the use of the passport of the child issued by the Department of State if the child is transported to a third country after departing from the United States; Whereas a child who is a citizen of the United States may have another nationality and may travel using a passport issued by another country, which-- (1) increases the difficulty in determining the whereabouts of the child; and (2) makes efforts to prevent abductions more critical; Whereas, during 2018, 232 children were returned to the United States and an additional 174 cases were resolved in other ways; and Whereas, in 2018, the Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Prevention Branch of the Office of Children's Issues of the Department of State, enrolled 236 children in a program aimed at preventing international parental child abduction: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes and observes ``Countering International Parental Child Abduction Month'' during the period beginning on April 1, 2020, and ending on April 30, 2020, to raise awareness of, and opposition to, international parental child abduction; and (2) urges the United States to continue playing a leadership role in raising awareness about the devastating impacts of international parental child abduction by educating the public about the negative emotional, psychological, and physical consequences to children and parents victimized by international parental child abduction.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-01-28-pt1-PgS643

formal

XX

transphobic

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on the motion to suspend the rules if a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or if the vote is objected to under clause 6 of rule XX. The House will resume proceedings on the postponed question at a later time.

2020-01-06

The SPEAKER pro tempore

House

CREC-2020-01-29-pt1-PgH647

formal

XX

transphobic

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3201) to extend the temporary scheduling order for fentanyl-related substances, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.

2020-01-06

The SPEAKER pro tempore

House

CREC-2020-01-29-pt1-PgH701

formal

XX

transphobic

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. Votes will be taken in the following order: Concurring in the Senate amendment to H.R. 550 with the amendment specified in section 4(a) of House Resolution 811; and Concurring in the Senate amendment to H.R. 550 with the amendment specified in section 4(b) of House Resolution 811. The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the remaining electronic vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote.

2020-01-06

The SPEAKER pro tempore

House

CREC-2020-01-30-pt1-PgH737

formal

terrorist

Islamophobic

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, and all of my colleagues in the Senate, throughout this impeachment trial, I thought a lot about what this country stands for. For me, as the son of an immigrant whose family came to the United States from Germany in the 1930s, America stands as a beacon of liberty, equal justice, and democracy. We are a nation forged by a revolution against a monarchy and its absolute power. We are a nation founded by the ratification of the most radically democratic document in history, the Constitution of the United States of America. Under the Constitution, we are governed not by monarchs--who act with impunity and without accountability--but by elected officers who answer to, and work for, ``We the People.'' Generations of Americans have struggled and sacrificed their lives to defend that audacious vision. The Senate has a duty and a moral responsibility to uphold that vision. Over the last 2 weeks, I fear that the Senate has failed in that duty. I am deeply disappointed that nearly all of my Republican colleagues refused to allow for the kind of witness testimony and documentary evidence that any legitimate trial would include. You cannot conduct a fair trial without witnesses. In my view, you also can't have a legitimate acquittal without a fair trial; that the Senate refused to shed more light on the facts is truly astonishing. Despite this, the facts as we know them are clear and plain. President Trump pressured the Government of Ukraine, an American ally, not for our national security interests but for his own selfish and corrupt political interests. When he was caught, he sought to cover it up by suppressing documents and preventing witnesses from testifying before Congress and the American people. The President's defense team had every opportunity to present us with evidence that would explain his actions or give us reason to doubt this clear pattern of fact. Instead, they shifted their defense away from the damning facts and embraced an extreme legal philosophy that would allow any President to abuse their power and ignore the law. This dangerous argument is not new. It was used by President Richard Nixon when he said: ``Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.'' President Nixon also strayed far from his duties to our Nation for his own personal and political gain. It was only after courageous Members of the U.S. Senate, in his own political party, put their country first and stood up to him that President Nixon finally resigned. We are now in yet another time when our Chief Executive has failed us, and our Nation requires more leadership and conscience from the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues are unwilling to deliver that kind of moral leadership. President Donald Trump has proven to be unfit for the office he occupies. He abused his powers and continues to engage in a coverup. He presents a clear and present danger to our national security and, more fundamentally, to our democracy itself. That is why my conscience and my duty to defend our Constitution compel me to vote to convict Donald Trump. Ihope the rest of you will join in this vote, but I am not naive. I understand how President Trump operates. I know how ugly it can become if you dare to challenge him. But your fear of this bully cannot outweigh your duty to the American people. Your fear cannot blind you to how you will be viewed by history. What you should really fear is what will happen when there are no limits on any President, even when he is risking our national security and our foreign alliances to illegitimately maintain his grip on power. What we should all fear is what President Trump will do next if the Senate does not hold him accountable for the clear abuses of power he has already committed. This is the same President who praises dictators and despots and jeopardizes our international alliances. This is the same President who stole billions of dollars from military construction funds to pay for his monument to division and racism. This is the same President who is more focused on lobbing insults and spreading Russian conspiracy theories on Twitter than he is on his own intelligence briefings. Let me just say that I pay close attention to the intelligence that I am allowed to see, and from my seat on both the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, I am acutely aware of the threats that our Nation faces. They include an emboldened North Korea, the Iranian regime, and terrorist organizations across several continents. Russia and China are acting aggressively to assert their authoritarian influence and provoke American interests and our allies, including the Ukraine. Finally, with the 2020 Presidential election mere months away, Russia is once again targeting our election systems and manipulating our democratic discourse. Right now, patriotic Americans working in the State Department, for our intelligence agencies, and serving in the military are defending us from those very threats. These Americans pledge to obey the orders of their Commander in Chief. They trust that their Commander in Chief's loyalty and sole focus is squarely on the best interests of the United States of America. I don't say this lightly: President Trump has betrayed that trust. He promised us that he would put America first. Instead, he put himself first. Throughout our history, the defense of our Nation has depended on the leadership of men whose names we now remember when we visit their memorials, names like Lincoln and Washington and Roosevelt. These men all swore the same oath that President Trump did when they assumed our Nation's most powerful office. Our Presidents swear to ``faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States'' and to ``preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' President Trump has violated that oath. So I will ask us once again, what does America stand for? In considering that question, I think of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.--the only man who did not serve as President whom we recognize with a memorial on our National Mall. More than 50 years after his assassination, Dr. King's life's work to make our Nation more fully live up to our founding principles still resonates. These are the same principles that compelled my father's family to come to this country: liberty, equal justice, democracy. While fighting for those principles, Dr. King wrote in his letter from a Birmingham jail: ``The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands in times of challenge and controversy.'' My colleagues, this is one of those times. Two years after writing the Birmingham Jail letter, Dr. King led thousands on a 5-day, 54-mile march from Selma to Montgomery for our fundamental American right: the right to vote in free and fair elections. Remember, that right is what President Trump has threatened by inviting foreign interference in our elections. Upon reaching the steps of the Alabama State Capitol, Dr. King proclaimed: ``We must come to see that the end we seek is a society at peace with itself, a society that can live with its conscience.'' I sincerely hope that those of us in this body can keep seeking that society, that America. Before I finish, I also want to address Americans who have watched this trial unfold and are rightly disappointed by the coverup that it has become. I would urge you to remember what Dr. King said about accepting finite disappointment but never losing infinite hope. Despite what the Senate is about to do and the danger I fear it will bring about, I will never lose hope in what America stands for because we the people--not any King or dictator--still hold immense power in this Nation, and it is up to all of us now to wield that power. I yield back.

2020-01-06

Mr. HEINRICH

Senate

CREC-2020-02-03-pt1-PgS790-4

formal

single

homophobic

Mr. BLUNT (for himself, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Moran) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: S. Res. 490 Whereas on Sunday, February 2, 2020, the Kansas City Chiefs (in this preamble referred to as the ``Chiefs'') defeated the San Francisco 49ers by a score of 31 to 20 to win Super Bowl LIV in Miami, Florida; Whereas the Chiefs, established on August 14, 1959, playing in their 60th season in the National Football League (referred to in this preamble as the ``NFL''), made their third Super Bowl appearance and their first Super Bowl appearance since Super Bowl IV; Whereas the Chiefs overcame a 10-point deficit in the fourth quarter and scored 21 straight points in the final 6 minutes and 13 seconds of gameplay to earn the victory; Whereas the victory in Super Bowl LIV earned the Chiefs their second Super Bowl victory, ending their 50-year Super Bowl drought that had lasted since the team last won Super Bowl IV on January 11, 1970; Whereas the Chiefs were participants in the first ever Super Bowl and are now champions of the centennial season of the NFL; Whereas the Chiefs began their championship season in another great Missouri city, St. Joseph, holding training camp on the campus of Missouri Western State University for the tenth straight year; Whereas head coach Andy Reid earned his 222nd career win, placing him sixth on the all-time wins list of the NFL and earning his first Super Bowl title in his 21-year tenure as a head coach in the NFL; Whereas Andy Reid is the 24th head coach of the NFL to appear in more than 1 Super Bowl; Whereas in the 2019 NFL season, the Chiefs earned a playoff bid for the sixth time in 7 seasons under Andy Reid; Whereas quarterback Patrick Mahomes completed 26 of 42 pass attempts for 286 yards and 2 touchdowns, rushed 9 times for 29 yards and 1 touchdown, and was named Most Valuable Player of Super Bowl LIV; Whereas Patrick Mahomes became the youngest player in NFL history to earn both the NFL Most Valuable Player award and a Super Bowl title, while setting a playoff record for most touchdowns thrown before the first interception to start a player's playoff career; Whereas in the American Football Conference Championship, Patrick Mahomes completed an iconic 27-yard scramble down the sideline for a touchdown to take the lead against the Tennessee Titans; Whereas Patrick Mahomes became the first NFL quarterback with 3 double-digit comebacks in a single postseason; Whereas Damien Williams rushed for 104 yards and scored 2 touchdowns, increasing his career playoff touchdown total to 11, tying Hall of Famer Terrell Davis for the most touchdowns in an individual's first 6 playoff games; Whereas Travis Kelce had 6 receptions for 43 yards and 1 touchdown; Whereas Tyreek Hill had 9 receptions for 105 yards, including a crucial 44-yard reception on third-and-fifteen with only 7 minutes remaining in the fourth quarter; Whereas Sammy Watkins had 5 receptions for 98 yards; Whereas Bashaud Breeland led the team with 7 tackles and 1 interception; Whereas Chris Jones was a disruptive force with 3 passes defended; Whereas Frank Clark sacked the quarterback of the 49ers, Jimmy Garoppolo, on fourth-and-ten with fewer than 2 minutes remaining to seal the victory; Whereas Harrison Butker was 1-for-1 in field goal attempts and 4-for-4 in point-after attempts; Whereas Dustin Colquitt, the longest-tenured Chief, earned his first Super Bowl victory in his 15th season; Whereas kick returner Mecole Hardman, tight end Travis Kelce, safety Tyrann Mathieu, and right tackle Mitchell Schwartz were named to the Associated Press All-Pro team for the 2019 season; Whereas the Chiefs should be recognized for their tremendous resiliency in the face of adversity when trailing 24-0 against the Houston Texans in the American Football Conference Divisional Round, down by 10 against the Tennessee Titans in the American Football Conference Championship Round, and trailing 20-10 against the San Francisco 49ers in Super Bowl LIV; Whereas the entire Chiefs roster contributed to the Super Bowl victory, including Nick Allegretti, Jackson Barton, Blake Bell, Bashaud Breeland, Alex Brown, Harrison Butker, Morris Claiborne, Frank Clark, Dustin Colquitt, Laurent Duvernay-Tardif, Cam Erving, Rashad Fenton, Eric Fisher, Kendall Fuller, Mecole Hardman, Demone Harris, Chad Henne, Tyreek Hill, Anthony Hitchens, Ryan Hunter, Chris Jones, Travis Kelce, Tanoh Kpassagnon, Darron Lee, Jordan Lucas, Patrick Mahomes, Tyrann Mathieu, LeSean McCoy, Matt Moore, Ben Niemann, Derrick Nnadi, Dorian O'Daniel, Mike Pennel, Byron Pringle, Reggie Ragland, Austin Reiter, Demarcus Robinson, Khalen Saunders, Mitchell Schwartz, Anthony Sherman, Daniel Sorensen, Terrell Suggs, Darwin Thompson, Charvarius Ward, Sammy Watkins, Armani Watts, Damien Williams, Xavier Williams, Damien Wilson, James Winchester, Stefen Wisniewski, Andrew Wylie, and Deon Yelder; Whereas the victory of the Kansas City Chiefs in Super Bowl LIV instills an extraordinary sense of pride for fans in the States of Missouri and Kansas and across the Midwest; and Whereas people all over the world are asking, ``How `bout those Chiefs?'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) congratulates the Kansas City Chiefs and their entire staff, Mayor of Kansas City Quinton Lucas, Governor of Missouri Mike Parson, and loyal fans of the Kansas City Chiefs for their victory in Super Bowl LIV; and (2) respectfully directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to-- (A) the chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Kansas City Chiefs, Clark Hunt; (B) the president of the Kansas City Chiefs, Mark Donovan; and (C) the head coach of the Kansas City Chiefs, Andy Reid.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-02-03-pt1-PgS811-2

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-3887. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Acetamiprid; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 10004-12-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 3, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-3888. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Chlorfenapyr; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 10004-05-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 3, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-3889. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Cyantraniliprole; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 10004-23-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 3, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-3890. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Difenoconazole; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 10002-06-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 3, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-3891. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Ethylenebis(oxyethylene) Bis[3-(5-Tert-butyl-4- hydroxy-M-tolyl) propionate]; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance'' (FRL No. 10002-96-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 3, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-3892. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Prohexadione Calcium; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 10003-04-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 3, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-3893. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance'' (FRL No. 10003-07- OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 3, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-3894. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Flutrafol; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 10004- 03-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 3, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-3895. A communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Mali that was declared in Executive Order 13882 of July 26, 2019; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-3896. A communication from the Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Fiscal Year 2020: Annual Performance Plan and Report, and Budget Overview''; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-3897. A communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Libya that was originally declared in Executive Order 13566 of February 25, 2011; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-3898. 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; Connecticut; Transport State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Ozone Standard'' (FRL No. 10004-95-Region 1) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 3, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3899. 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; Ohio; Prevention of Significant Deterioration Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule'' (FRL No. 10005- 04-Region 5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 3, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3900. 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; Texas; Houston-Galveston- Brazoria Area Redesignation and Maintenance Plan for Revoked Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Section 185 Fee Program'' (FRL No. 10004-70-Region 6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 3, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3901. 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; Texas; Revisions to Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification'' (FRL No. 10004-67-Region 6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 3, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3902. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Reasonably Available Control Technology State Implementation Plan for Nitrogen Oxides Under the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (FRL No. 10004-84-Region 3) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 3, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3903. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) Clause Update for Submission of Invoices; Final Rule; correction and republication'' (FRL No. 10002-43- OMS) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 3, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3904. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), transmitting, pursuant to law, the 2019 biennial report to Congress on the status of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, and Nebraska; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3905. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to Reservoir Sediment; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3906. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to United States Citizens detained in Iran and efforts to secure their release; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-3907. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the Government of Bangladesh's Support for Human Rights; Protection of Freedom of Expression, Association, and Religion, and Due Process of Law; and Ensuring Free, Fair, and Participatory Elections; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-3908. A communication from the Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Benefits Payable in Terminated Single- Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits'' (29 CFR Part 4022) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 31, 2020; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-3909. A communication from the Secretary of the Board of Governors, U.S. Postal Service, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-3910. A communication from the Chairman of the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer, transmitting, pursuant to law, the 2018 Annual Report to the President and Congress; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-3911. A communication from the Secretary of the Federal Maritime Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Inflation Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties'' (RIN3072-AC79) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 31, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3912. 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-148, V- 177, and V-345 in the Vicinity of Ely, MN, and Hayward, WI'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0476)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 30, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3913. 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 (53); Amendment No. 3888'' ((RIN2120-AA65) (Docket No. 31293)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 30, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3914. 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, Revocation, and Establishment of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Western United States'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2018-0221)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 30, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3915. 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 (103); Amendment No. 3887'' ((RIN2120-AA65) (Docket No. 31292)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 30, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3916. 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 C Airspace; Lansing, MI'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0662)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 30, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3917. 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; Huntsville, AL'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2019-1011)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 30, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3918. 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 the Class D and Class E Airspace; Meridian, MS'' ((RIN2120-AA65) (Docket No. FAA- 2019-0598)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 30, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3919. 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 and Establishment of Multiple Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes in the Vicinity of Houston, TX'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2018-0817)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 30, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3920. 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-369 Due to the Decommissioning of the Groesbeck, TX, VOR'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2019- 0542)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 30, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3921. 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 T-217 in the Vicinity of Springfield, OH'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0998)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 30, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-02-04-pt1-PgS855-2

formal

XX

transphobic

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or votes objected to under clause 6 of rule XX. The House will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time.

2020-01-06

The SPEAKER pro tempore

House

CREC-2020-02-05-pt1-PgH777