Datasets:

jkruk

/

dw_instance_sm

like 0

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4044) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the National Estuary Program, and for other purposes, as amended.

2020-01-06

Mr. MALINOWSKI

House

CREC-2020-02-05-pt1-PgH780

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1132) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to establish a grant program to support the restoration of San Francisco Bay, as amended.

2020-01-06

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

House

CREC-2020-02-05-pt1-PgH785

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2247) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide assistance for programs and activities to protect the water quality of Puget Sound, and for other purposes, as amended.

2020-01-06

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

House

CREC-2020-02-05-pt1-PgH788

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4031) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for other purposes.

2020-01-06

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

House

CREC-2020-02-05-pt1-PgH799

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4275) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program, and for other purposes, as amended.

2020-01-06

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

House

CREC-2020-02-05-pt1-PgH805

formal

Detroit

racist

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3976) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 12711 East Jefferson Avenue in Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Aretha Franklin Post Office Building''.

2020-01-06

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

House

CREC-2020-02-05-pt1-PgH827

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

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. 4044) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the National Estuary Program, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.

2020-01-06

The SPEAKER pro tempore

House

CREC-2020-02-05-pt1-PgH833-2

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. 4044) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the National Estuary Program, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.

2020-01-06

The SPEAKER pro tempore

House

CREC-2020-02-05-pt1-PgH833-2

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

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. 4031) to amend the FederalWater Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.

2020-01-06

The SPEAKER pro tempore

House

CREC-2020-02-05-pt1-PgH833-3

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. 4031) to amend the FederalWater Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.

2020-01-06

The SPEAKER pro tempore

House

CREC-2020-02-05-pt1-PgH833-3

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. 2382) to amend title 5, United States Code, to repeal the requirement that the United States Postal Service prepay future retirement benefits, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.

2020-01-06

The SPEAKER pro tempore

House

CREC-2020-02-05-pt1-PgH834

formal

terrorist

Islamophobic

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I seek recognition to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: House Resolution 832. Whereas on December 20th, 2019, Speaker Pelosi extended an invitation for President Trump to address a joint session of Congress on February 4th, 2020; Whereas on February 4th, 2020, President Trump delivered his State of the Union address, in which he honored the sacrifice of the following American heroes and their families: General Charles McGee, one of the last surviving Tuskegee airmen, who served in World War II, the Korean war and the Vietnam war; Kayla Mueller, a humanitarian aid worker who was caring for suffering civilians in Syria when she was kidnapped, tortured and enslaved by ISIS for over 500 days before being murdered by ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi; Army Staff Sergeant Christopher Hake, who was killed while serving his second tour of duty in Iraq by a roadside bomb supplied by Iranian terrorist leader Qasem Soleimani; Sergeant First Class Townsend Williams, who is currently serving his fourth deployment in the Middle Eastand his wife, Amy, who works full-time for the Army and devotes hundreds of hours helping military families; Whereas immediately following the address, while still presiding over the joint session, Speaker Pelosi ripped up an official copy of the President's remarks, which contained the names and stories of these patriots who sacrificed so much for our country; and Whereas the conduct of Speaker Pelosi was a breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings of the joint session, to the discredit of the House: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of the behavior of Speaker Pelosi during the joint session of Congress held on February 4, 2020.

2020-01-06

Ms. GRANGER

House

CREC-2020-02-05-pt1-PgH836-5

formal

single

homophobic

Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: 3710. A letter from the Senior Legal Advisor for Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Treasury, Financial Stability Oversight Council, transmitting the Council's final interpretive guidance -- Authority To Require Supervision and Regulation of Certain Nonbank Financial Companies (RIN: 4030- ZA00) received February 3, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Financial Services. 3711. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Flutriafol; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA- HQ-OPP-2018-0297; FRL-10004-03] received February 3, 2019, 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. 3712. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Prohexadione Calcium; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0785; FRL-10003-04] received February 3, 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. 3713. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP- 2019-0279; FRL-10003-07] received February 3, 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. 3714. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Cyantraniliprole; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0694; FRL-10004-23] received February 3, 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. 3715. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Difenoconazole; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0178 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0076; FRL-10002-06] received February 3, 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. 3716. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) Clause Update for Submission of Invoices [EPA-HQ-OMS-2018-0742; FRL-10002-43-OMS] received February 3, 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. 3717. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5- tert-butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate]; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-01296; FRL-10002- 96] received February 3, 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. 3718. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Texas; Revisions to Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification [EPA-R06-OAR-2019-0043; FRL-10004-67-Region 6] received February 3, 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. 3719. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- 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 [EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0207; FRL- 10004-84-Region 3] received February 3, 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. 3720. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Chlorfenapyr; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0783; FRL-10002-05] received February 3, 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. 3721. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Texas; Houston- Galveston-Brazoria Area Redesignation and Maintenance Plan for Revoked Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Section 185 Fee Program [EPA-R06-OAR-2018-0715; FRL-10002-70- Region 6] received February 3, 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. 3722. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Prevention of Significant Deterioration Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule [EPA- R05-OAR-2012-0990; FRL-10005-04-Region 5] received February 3, 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. 3723. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Transport State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Ozone Standard [EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0513; FRL-10004-95-Region 1] received February 3, 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. 3724. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Acetamiprid; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0784; FRL-10004-12] received February 3, 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. 3725. A letter from the Associate Director of International Economics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Direct Investment Surveys: BE-10, Benchmark Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad [Docket No.: 191104-0074] (RIN: 0691-AA89) received February 3, 2019, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 3726. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 23-204, ``Primary Election Filing Requirement Temporary Amendment Act of 2020'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 814); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. 3727. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 23-216, ``Parkside Parcel E and J Mixed-Income Apartments Tax Abatement Temporary Amendment Act of 2020'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 814); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. 3728. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 23-203, ``Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Support Clarification Amendment Act of 2019'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 814); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. 3729. A letter from the Senior Advisor, Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting a notification of a discontinuation of service in acting role, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105- 277, 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. 3730. A letter from the White House Liaison, Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs, Department of Education, transmitting a notification of a designation of acting officer and a discontinuation of service in acting role, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. 3731. A letter from the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act Annual Report to Congress 2019, pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 20307(b); Public Law 99-410, Sec. 105(b) (as amended by Public Law 111-84, Sec. 587(2)); (123 Stat. 2333); to the Committee on House Administration. 3732. A letter from the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Inflation Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties [Docket No.: 20-01] (RIN: 3072-AC79) received February 3, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on the Judiciary. 3733. A letter from the Acting General Counsel, National Credit Union Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment (RIN: 3133-AF09) received February 3, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on the Judiciary. 3734. A letter from the Chairman, Office of Proceedings, Surface Transportation Board, transmitting the Board's final rule -- Civil Monetary Penalties--2020 Adjustment [Docket No.: EP 716 (Sub-No. 50)] received February 3, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on the Judiciary. 3735. A letter from the Administrator, FEMA, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a report advising that the cost of response and recovery efforts for FEMA-3426-EM in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has exceeded the limit for a single emergency declaration, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5193(b)(3); Public Law 93-288, Sec. 503(b)(3) (as amended by Public Law 100-707, Sec. 107(a)); (102 Stat. 4707); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 3736. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Department of the Army, Department of Defense, transmitting the 2019 Biennial Report to Congress on the Status of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project, KS, MO, IA, NE, pursuant to Public Law 113-121, Sec. 4003(e); (128 Stat. 1313); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 3737. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Department of the Army, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's Reservoir Sediment Report, pursuant to Sec. 1146(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018; to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 3738. A letter from the Executive Director, Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, transmitting the Office's Annual Report on Awards and Settlements for Calendar Year 2019 for Employing Offices of the House of Representatives and the Annual Report on Awards and Settlements for Calendar Year 2019 for Employing Offices of the Senate, and other Employing Offices, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 1381(l)(1)(A); Public Law 104-1, title III, 301(l)(1)(A) (as added by 201(a)(1)(B)); (132 Stat. 5315); jointly to the Committees on House Administration and Education and Labor.

2020-01-06

Unknown

House

CREC-2020-02-05-pt1-PgH845-3

formal

based

white supremacist

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York: Committee on Oversight and Reform. H.R. 3941. A bill to enhance the innovation, security, and availability of cloud computing services used in the Federal Government by establishing the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program within the General Services Administration and by establishing a risk management, authorization, and continuous monitoring process to enable the Federal Government to leverage cloud computing services using a risk-based approach consistent with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 and cloud-based operations, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 116-391). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. DeSAULNIER: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 833. Resolution providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 826) expressing disapproval of the Trump administration's harmful actions towards Medicaid; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2474) to amend the National Labor Relations Act, the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, and the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, and for other purposes; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5687) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for olther purposes (Rept. 116-392). Referred to the House Calendar.

2020-01-06

Unknown

House

CREC-2020-02-05-pt1-PgH847

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York: Committee on Oversight and Reform. H.R. 3941. A bill to enhance the innovation, security, and availability of cloud computing services used in the Federal Government by establishing the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program within the General Services Administration and by establishing a risk management, authorization, and continuous monitoring process to enable the Federal Government to leverage cloud computing services using a risk-based approach consistent with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 and cloud-based operations, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 116-391). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. DeSAULNIER: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 833. Resolution providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 826) expressing disapproval of the Trump administration's harmful actions towards Medicaid; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2474) to amend the National Labor Relations Act, the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, and the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, and for other purposes; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5687) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for olther purposes (Rept. 116-392). Referred to the House Calendar.

2020-01-06

Unknown

House

CREC-2020-02-05-pt1-PgH847

formal

blue

antisemitic

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I will speak later this afternoon, at about 3:30--prior to the vote on the Articles of Impeachment--about impeachment, but this morning, I would like to briefly respond to President Trump's third State of the Union Address. It was a sad moment for democracy. The President's speech last night was much more like a Trump rally than a speech a true leader would give. It was demagogic, undignified, highly partisan, and, in too many places, just untruthful. Instead of a dignified President, we had some combination of a pep rally leader, a reality show host, and a carnival barker. That is not what Presidents are. President Trump took credit for inheriting an economy that has been growing at about the same pace over the last 10 years. The bottom line is, during the last 3 years of the Obama administration, more jobs were created than under these 3 years of the Trump administration. Yet he can't resist digging at the past President even though the past President's economic number was better than his. He boasted about how many manufacturing jobs he has created. Manufacturing jobs have gone down, in part, because of the President's trade policies for 5 months late last year. There was a 5-month-long recession last year. Farmers are struggling mightily. Farm income is way down. Bankruptcies are the highest they have been in 8 years. Crop prices are dwindling, and markets may never recover from the damage of the President's trade war as so many contracts for soybeans and other goods have gone to Argentina and Brazil. These are not 1-year contracts; these are long-term contracts. The President talked at length about healthcare and claimed--amazingly at one point--he will fight to protect patients with preexisting conditions. This President just lies--just lies. He is in court right now, trying to undo the protections for preexisting conditions. At the same time, he says he wants to do it, and all the Republicans get upand cheer. His administration is working as hard as it can to take down the law that guarantees protections for preexisting conditions. The claim is not partly true; it is not half true; it is not misleading. It is flatly, objectively, unequivocally false. It reads on my notes ``false.'' Let's call it for what it is--it is a lie. In 3 years, President Trump has done everything imaginable to undermine Americans' healthcare. He is even hoping to drag out the resolution of the lawsuit past the next election. If President Trump were truly interested in shoring up protections for people with preexisting conditions, he would drop this lawsuit now. Then he would be doing something, not just talking and having his actions totally contradict his words. Until the President drops his lawsuit, when he says he cares about Americans' healthcare, he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. When he talks about being the blue-collar President, he doesn't understand blue-collar families. It is true that wages went up 3 percent. If you are making $50,000 a year, that is a good salary. By my calculation, that is about $30 a week. When you get a medical bill of $4,000 and your deductible is $5,000, when your car has an accident and it is going to cost you $3,000 or $4,000 to fix it and you don't have that money, the $30 a week doesn't mean much. When asked, ``Is it easier for you to pay your bills today or the day Trump became President?'' they say it is harder to pay their bills today. That is what working families care about, getting their costs down--their college costs, their education costs, their healthcare costs, their automobile and infrastructure costs--not these vaunted Wall Street statistics that the financial leaders look at and think: Oh, we are great. They are great. Their 3-percent increase in income--and it has been greater--puts a lot of money in their pockets. Working people don't feel any better--they feel worse--because Donald Trump always sides with the special interests when it comes to things that affect working families, like health care, like drug costs, like college. In so many other areas, the President's claims were just not true. He claimed he has gotten tough on China. He sold out to China a month ago. Everyone knows that. Because he has hurt the farmers so badly, the bulk of what happened in the Chinese agreement was for them to purchase some soybeans. We don't even know if that will happen, but it didn't get at the real ways China hurts us. He spoke about the desire for a bipartisan infrastructure bill. We Senate Democrats put together a $1 trillion bill 3 years ago, and the President hasn't shown any interest in discussing it. In fact, when Speaker Pelosi and I went to visit him about infrastructure, he walked out. This is typical of Donald Trump. In his speech, he bragged about all of these things he wants to do or is doing, but his actions belie his words. Maybe the best metaphor was his claim to bring democracy to Venezuela. There was a big policy there. It flopped. If the policy were working, Juan Guaido wouldn't have been in the balcony here. He would have been in Venezuela. He would have been sitting in the President's palace or at least have been waging a fight to win. He was here--and the President brags about his Venezuela policy? Give us a break. He hasn't brought an end to the Maduro regime. The Maduro regime is more powerful today and more entrenched today than it was when the President began his anti-Maduro fight--the same thing with North Korea, the same thing with China, the same thing with Russia, the same thing with Syria. The fact is, when President Trump gets over an hour to speak, the number of mistruths, mischaracterizations, exaggerations, and contradictions is breathtaking. No other President comes close. The old expression says: ``Watch what I do, not what I say.'' What the President does will be revealed on Monday in his budget. That is what he wants to do. If past is prologue, almost everything in that budget will contradict what he will have said in his speech. In the past, he has cut money for healthcare, cut money for medical research, cut money for infrastructure, cut money for education, cut money to help kids with college--every one of those things. Ladies and gentlemen, I have faith in the American people. They will not be fooled. They are used to it. They can tell a little show here--a nonreality show--when they see one. They know it is a show. It is done for their amusement, for their titillation, but it doesn't improve America. Working people are not happy. The middle class is struggling to stay in the middle class, and those struggling to get to the middle class find it harder to get there. Their path is steeper. Far more than the President's speech, the President's budget is what truly reveals his priorities. The budget will be the truth serum, and in a few days, the American people will see how many of the President's words here are reality. I expect very few will be. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

2020-01-06

Mr. SCHUMER

Senate

CREC-2020-02-05-pt1-PgS872-2

formal

middle class

racist

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I will speak later this afternoon, at about 3:30--prior to the vote on the Articles of Impeachment--about impeachment, but this morning, I would like to briefly respond to President Trump's third State of the Union Address. It was a sad moment for democracy. The President's speech last night was much more like a Trump rally than a speech a true leader would give. It was demagogic, undignified, highly partisan, and, in too many places, just untruthful. Instead of a dignified President, we had some combination of a pep rally leader, a reality show host, and a carnival barker. That is not what Presidents are. President Trump took credit for inheriting an economy that has been growing at about the same pace over the last 10 years. The bottom line is, during the last 3 years of the Obama administration, more jobs were created than under these 3 years of the Trump administration. Yet he can't resist digging at the past President even though the past President's economic number was better than his. He boasted about how many manufacturing jobs he has created. Manufacturing jobs have gone down, in part, because of the President's trade policies for 5 months late last year. There was a 5-month-long recession last year. Farmers are struggling mightily. Farm income is way down. Bankruptcies are the highest they have been in 8 years. Crop prices are dwindling, and markets may never recover from the damage of the President's trade war as so many contracts for soybeans and other goods have gone to Argentina and Brazil. These are not 1-year contracts; these are long-term contracts. The President talked at length about healthcare and claimed--amazingly at one point--he will fight to protect patients with preexisting conditions. This President just lies--just lies. He is in court right now, trying to undo the protections for preexisting conditions. At the same time, he says he wants to do it, and all the Republicans get upand cheer. His administration is working as hard as it can to take down the law that guarantees protections for preexisting conditions. The claim is not partly true; it is not half true; it is not misleading. It is flatly, objectively, unequivocally false. It reads on my notes ``false.'' Let's call it for what it is--it is a lie. In 3 years, President Trump has done everything imaginable to undermine Americans' healthcare. He is even hoping to drag out the resolution of the lawsuit past the next election. If President Trump were truly interested in shoring up protections for people with preexisting conditions, he would drop this lawsuit now. Then he would be doing something, not just talking and having his actions totally contradict his words. Until the President drops his lawsuit, when he says he cares about Americans' healthcare, he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. When he talks about being the blue-collar President, he doesn't understand blue-collar families. It is true that wages went up 3 percent. If you are making $50,000 a year, that is a good salary. By my calculation, that is about $30 a week. When you get a medical bill of $4,000 and your deductible is $5,000, when your car has an accident and it is going to cost you $3,000 or $4,000 to fix it and you don't have that money, the $30 a week doesn't mean much. When asked, ``Is it easier for you to pay your bills today or the day Trump became President?'' they say it is harder to pay their bills today. That is what working families care about, getting their costs down--their college costs, their education costs, their healthcare costs, their automobile and infrastructure costs--not these vaunted Wall Street statistics that the financial leaders look at and think: Oh, we are great. They are great. Their 3-percent increase in income--and it has been greater--puts a lot of money in their pockets. Working people don't feel any better--they feel worse--because Donald Trump always sides with the special interests when it comes to things that affect working families, like health care, like drug costs, like college. In so many other areas, the President's claims were just not true. He claimed he has gotten tough on China. He sold out to China a month ago. Everyone knows that. Because he has hurt the farmers so badly, the bulk of what happened in the Chinese agreement was for them to purchase some soybeans. We don't even know if that will happen, but it didn't get at the real ways China hurts us. He spoke about the desire for a bipartisan infrastructure bill. We Senate Democrats put together a $1 trillion bill 3 years ago, and the President hasn't shown any interest in discussing it. In fact, when Speaker Pelosi and I went to visit him about infrastructure, he walked out. This is typical of Donald Trump. In his speech, he bragged about all of these things he wants to do or is doing, but his actions belie his words. Maybe the best metaphor was his claim to bring democracy to Venezuela. There was a big policy there. It flopped. If the policy were working, Juan Guaido wouldn't have been in the balcony here. He would have been in Venezuela. He would have been sitting in the President's palace or at least have been waging a fight to win. He was here--and the President brags about his Venezuela policy? Give us a break. He hasn't brought an end to the Maduro regime. The Maduro regime is more powerful today and more entrenched today than it was when the President began his anti-Maduro fight--the same thing with North Korea, the same thing with China, the same thing with Russia, the same thing with Syria. The fact is, when President Trump gets over an hour to speak, the number of mistruths, mischaracterizations, exaggerations, and contradictions is breathtaking. No other President comes close. The old expression says: ``Watch what I do, not what I say.'' What the President does will be revealed on Monday in his budget. That is what he wants to do. If past is prologue, almost everything in that budget will contradict what he will have said in his speech. In the past, he has cut money for healthcare, cut money for medical research, cut money for infrastructure, cut money for education, cut money to help kids with college--every one of those things. Ladies and gentlemen, I have faith in the American people. They will not be fooled. They are used to it. They can tell a little show here--a nonreality show--when they see one. They know it is a show. It is done for their amusement, for their titillation, but it doesn't improve America. Working people are not happy. The middle class is struggling to stay in the middle class, and those struggling to get to the middle class find it harder to get there. Their path is steeper. Far more than the President's speech, the President's budget is what truly reveals his priorities. The budget will be the truth serum, and in a few days, the American people will see how many of the President's words here are reality. I expect very few will be. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

2020-01-06

Mr. SCHUMER

Senate

CREC-2020-02-05-pt1-PgS872-2

formal

special interest

antisemitic

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I will speak later this afternoon, at about 3:30--prior to the vote on the Articles of Impeachment--about impeachment, but this morning, I would like to briefly respond to President Trump's third State of the Union Address. It was a sad moment for democracy. The President's speech last night was much more like a Trump rally than a speech a true leader would give. It was demagogic, undignified, highly partisan, and, in too many places, just untruthful. Instead of a dignified President, we had some combination of a pep rally leader, a reality show host, and a carnival barker. That is not what Presidents are. President Trump took credit for inheriting an economy that has been growing at about the same pace over the last 10 years. The bottom line is, during the last 3 years of the Obama administration, more jobs were created than under these 3 years of the Trump administration. Yet he can't resist digging at the past President even though the past President's economic number was better than his. He boasted about how many manufacturing jobs he has created. Manufacturing jobs have gone down, in part, because of the President's trade policies for 5 months late last year. There was a 5-month-long recession last year. Farmers are struggling mightily. Farm income is way down. Bankruptcies are the highest they have been in 8 years. Crop prices are dwindling, and markets may never recover from the damage of the President's trade war as so many contracts for soybeans and other goods have gone to Argentina and Brazil. These are not 1-year contracts; these are long-term contracts. The President talked at length about healthcare and claimed--amazingly at one point--he will fight to protect patients with preexisting conditions. This President just lies--just lies. He is in court right now, trying to undo the protections for preexisting conditions. At the same time, he says he wants to do it, and all the Republicans get upand cheer. His administration is working as hard as it can to take down the law that guarantees protections for preexisting conditions. The claim is not partly true; it is not half true; it is not misleading. It is flatly, objectively, unequivocally false. It reads on my notes ``false.'' Let's call it for what it is--it is a lie. In 3 years, President Trump has done everything imaginable to undermine Americans' healthcare. He is even hoping to drag out the resolution of the lawsuit past the next election. If President Trump were truly interested in shoring up protections for people with preexisting conditions, he would drop this lawsuit now. Then he would be doing something, not just talking and having his actions totally contradict his words. Until the President drops his lawsuit, when he says he cares about Americans' healthcare, he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. When he talks about being the blue-collar President, he doesn't understand blue-collar families. It is true that wages went up 3 percent. If you are making $50,000 a year, that is a good salary. By my calculation, that is about $30 a week. When you get a medical bill of $4,000 and your deductible is $5,000, when your car has an accident and it is going to cost you $3,000 or $4,000 to fix it and you don't have that money, the $30 a week doesn't mean much. When asked, ``Is it easier for you to pay your bills today or the day Trump became President?'' they say it is harder to pay their bills today. That is what working families care about, getting their costs down--their college costs, their education costs, their healthcare costs, their automobile and infrastructure costs--not these vaunted Wall Street statistics that the financial leaders look at and think: Oh, we are great. They are great. Their 3-percent increase in income--and it has been greater--puts a lot of money in their pockets. Working people don't feel any better--they feel worse--because Donald Trump always sides with the special interests when it comes to things that affect working families, like health care, like drug costs, like college. In so many other areas, the President's claims were just not true. He claimed he has gotten tough on China. He sold out to China a month ago. Everyone knows that. Because he has hurt the farmers so badly, the bulk of what happened in the Chinese agreement was for them to purchase some soybeans. We don't even know if that will happen, but it didn't get at the real ways China hurts us. He spoke about the desire for a bipartisan infrastructure bill. We Senate Democrats put together a $1 trillion bill 3 years ago, and the President hasn't shown any interest in discussing it. In fact, when Speaker Pelosi and I went to visit him about infrastructure, he walked out. This is typical of Donald Trump. In his speech, he bragged about all of these things he wants to do or is doing, but his actions belie his words. Maybe the best metaphor was his claim to bring democracy to Venezuela. There was a big policy there. It flopped. If the policy were working, Juan Guaido wouldn't have been in the balcony here. He would have been in Venezuela. He would have been sitting in the President's palace or at least have been waging a fight to win. He was here--and the President brags about his Venezuela policy? Give us a break. He hasn't brought an end to the Maduro regime. The Maduro regime is more powerful today and more entrenched today than it was when the President began his anti-Maduro fight--the same thing with North Korea, the same thing with China, the same thing with Russia, the same thing with Syria. The fact is, when President Trump gets over an hour to speak, the number of mistruths, mischaracterizations, exaggerations, and contradictions is breathtaking. No other President comes close. The old expression says: ``Watch what I do, not what I say.'' What the President does will be revealed on Monday in his budget. That is what he wants to do. If past is prologue, almost everything in that budget will contradict what he will have said in his speech. In the past, he has cut money for healthcare, cut money for medical research, cut money for infrastructure, cut money for education, cut money to help kids with college--every one of those things. Ladies and gentlemen, I have faith in the American people. They will not be fooled. They are used to it. They can tell a little show here--a nonreality show--when they see one. They know it is a show. It is done for their amusement, for their titillation, but it doesn't improve America. Working people are not happy. The middle class is struggling to stay in the middle class, and those struggling to get to the middle class find it harder to get there. Their path is steeper. Far more than the President's speech, the President's budget is what truly reveals his priorities. The budget will be the truth serum, and in a few days, the American people will see how many of the President's words here are reality. I expect very few will be. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

2020-01-06

Mr. SCHUMER

Senate

CREC-2020-02-05-pt1-PgS872-2

formal

special interests

antisemitic

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I will speak later this afternoon, at about 3:30--prior to the vote on the Articles of Impeachment--about impeachment, but this morning, I would like to briefly respond to President Trump's third State of the Union Address. It was a sad moment for democracy. The President's speech last night was much more like a Trump rally than a speech a true leader would give. It was demagogic, undignified, highly partisan, and, in too many places, just untruthful. Instead of a dignified President, we had some combination of a pep rally leader, a reality show host, and a carnival barker. That is not what Presidents are. President Trump took credit for inheriting an economy that has been growing at about the same pace over the last 10 years. The bottom line is, during the last 3 years of the Obama administration, more jobs were created than under these 3 years of the Trump administration. Yet he can't resist digging at the past President even though the past President's economic number was better than his. He boasted about how many manufacturing jobs he has created. Manufacturing jobs have gone down, in part, because of the President's trade policies for 5 months late last year. There was a 5-month-long recession last year. Farmers are struggling mightily. Farm income is way down. Bankruptcies are the highest they have been in 8 years. Crop prices are dwindling, and markets may never recover from the damage of the President's trade war as so many contracts for soybeans and other goods have gone to Argentina and Brazil. These are not 1-year contracts; these are long-term contracts. The President talked at length about healthcare and claimed--amazingly at one point--he will fight to protect patients with preexisting conditions. This President just lies--just lies. He is in court right now, trying to undo the protections for preexisting conditions. At the same time, he says he wants to do it, and all the Republicans get upand cheer. His administration is working as hard as it can to take down the law that guarantees protections for preexisting conditions. The claim is not partly true; it is not half true; it is not misleading. It is flatly, objectively, unequivocally false. It reads on my notes ``false.'' Let's call it for what it is--it is a lie. In 3 years, President Trump has done everything imaginable to undermine Americans' healthcare. He is even hoping to drag out the resolution of the lawsuit past the next election. If President Trump were truly interested in shoring up protections for people with preexisting conditions, he would drop this lawsuit now. Then he would be doing something, not just talking and having his actions totally contradict his words. Until the President drops his lawsuit, when he says he cares about Americans' healthcare, he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. When he talks about being the blue-collar President, he doesn't understand blue-collar families. It is true that wages went up 3 percent. If you are making $50,000 a year, that is a good salary. By my calculation, that is about $30 a week. When you get a medical bill of $4,000 and your deductible is $5,000, when your car has an accident and it is going to cost you $3,000 or $4,000 to fix it and you don't have that money, the $30 a week doesn't mean much. When asked, ``Is it easier for you to pay your bills today or the day Trump became President?'' they say it is harder to pay their bills today. That is what working families care about, getting their costs down--their college costs, their education costs, their healthcare costs, their automobile and infrastructure costs--not these vaunted Wall Street statistics that the financial leaders look at and think: Oh, we are great. They are great. Their 3-percent increase in income--and it has been greater--puts a lot of money in their pockets. Working people don't feel any better--they feel worse--because Donald Trump always sides with the special interests when it comes to things that affect working families, like health care, like drug costs, like college. In so many other areas, the President's claims were just not true. He claimed he has gotten tough on China. He sold out to China a month ago. Everyone knows that. Because he has hurt the farmers so badly, the bulk of what happened in the Chinese agreement was for them to purchase some soybeans. We don't even know if that will happen, but it didn't get at the real ways China hurts us. He spoke about the desire for a bipartisan infrastructure bill. We Senate Democrats put together a $1 trillion bill 3 years ago, and the President hasn't shown any interest in discussing it. In fact, when Speaker Pelosi and I went to visit him about infrastructure, he walked out. This is typical of Donald Trump. In his speech, he bragged about all of these things he wants to do or is doing, but his actions belie his words. Maybe the best metaphor was his claim to bring democracy to Venezuela. There was a big policy there. It flopped. If the policy were working, Juan Guaido wouldn't have been in the balcony here. He would have been in Venezuela. He would have been sitting in the President's palace or at least have been waging a fight to win. He was here--and the President brags about his Venezuela policy? Give us a break. He hasn't brought an end to the Maduro regime. The Maduro regime is more powerful today and more entrenched today than it was when the President began his anti-Maduro fight--the same thing with North Korea, the same thing with China, the same thing with Russia, the same thing with Syria. The fact is, when President Trump gets over an hour to speak, the number of mistruths, mischaracterizations, exaggerations, and contradictions is breathtaking. No other President comes close. The old expression says: ``Watch what I do, not what I say.'' What the President does will be revealed on Monday in his budget. That is what he wants to do. If past is prologue, almost everything in that budget will contradict what he will have said in his speech. In the past, he has cut money for healthcare, cut money for medical research, cut money for infrastructure, cut money for education, cut money to help kids with college--every one of those things. Ladies and gentlemen, I have faith in the American people. They will not be fooled. They are used to it. They can tell a little show here--a nonreality show--when they see one. They know it is a show. It is done for their amusement, for their titillation, but it doesn't improve America. Working people are not happy. The middle class is struggling to stay in the middle class, and those struggling to get to the middle class find it harder to get there. Their path is steeper. Far more than the President's speech, the President's budget is what truly reveals his priorities. The budget will be the truth serum, and in a few days, the American people will see how many of the President's words here are reality. I expect very few will be. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

2020-01-06

Mr. SCHUMER

Senate

CREC-2020-02-05-pt1-PgS872-2

formal

working families

racist

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I will speak later this afternoon, at about 3:30--prior to the vote on the Articles of Impeachment--about impeachment, but this morning, I would like to briefly respond to President Trump's third State of the Union Address. It was a sad moment for democracy. The President's speech last night was much more like a Trump rally than a speech a true leader would give. It was demagogic, undignified, highly partisan, and, in too many places, just untruthful. Instead of a dignified President, we had some combination of a pep rally leader, a reality show host, and a carnival barker. That is not what Presidents are. President Trump took credit for inheriting an economy that has been growing at about the same pace over the last 10 years. The bottom line is, during the last 3 years of the Obama administration, more jobs were created than under these 3 years of the Trump administration. Yet he can't resist digging at the past President even though the past President's economic number was better than his. He boasted about how many manufacturing jobs he has created. Manufacturing jobs have gone down, in part, because of the President's trade policies for 5 months late last year. There was a 5-month-long recession last year. Farmers are struggling mightily. Farm income is way down. Bankruptcies are the highest they have been in 8 years. Crop prices are dwindling, and markets may never recover from the damage of the President's trade war as so many contracts for soybeans and other goods have gone to Argentina and Brazil. These are not 1-year contracts; these are long-term contracts. The President talked at length about healthcare and claimed--amazingly at one point--he will fight to protect patients with preexisting conditions. This President just lies--just lies. He is in court right now, trying to undo the protections for preexisting conditions. At the same time, he says he wants to do it, and all the Republicans get upand cheer. His administration is working as hard as it can to take down the law that guarantees protections for preexisting conditions. The claim is not partly true; it is not half true; it is not misleading. It is flatly, objectively, unequivocally false. It reads on my notes ``false.'' Let's call it for what it is--it is a lie. In 3 years, President Trump has done everything imaginable to undermine Americans' healthcare. He is even hoping to drag out the resolution of the lawsuit past the next election. If President Trump were truly interested in shoring up protections for people with preexisting conditions, he would drop this lawsuit now. Then he would be doing something, not just talking and having his actions totally contradict his words. Until the President drops his lawsuit, when he says he cares about Americans' healthcare, he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. When he talks about being the blue-collar President, he doesn't understand blue-collar families. It is true that wages went up 3 percent. If you are making $50,000 a year, that is a good salary. By my calculation, that is about $30 a week. When you get a medical bill of $4,000 and your deductible is $5,000, when your car has an accident and it is going to cost you $3,000 or $4,000 to fix it and you don't have that money, the $30 a week doesn't mean much. When asked, ``Is it easier for you to pay your bills today or the day Trump became President?'' they say it is harder to pay their bills today. That is what working families care about, getting their costs down--their college costs, their education costs, their healthcare costs, their automobile and infrastructure costs--not these vaunted Wall Street statistics that the financial leaders look at and think: Oh, we are great. They are great. Their 3-percent increase in income--and it has been greater--puts a lot of money in their pockets. Working people don't feel any better--they feel worse--because Donald Trump always sides with the special interests when it comes to things that affect working families, like health care, like drug costs, like college. In so many other areas, the President's claims were just not true. He claimed he has gotten tough on China. He sold out to China a month ago. Everyone knows that. Because he has hurt the farmers so badly, the bulk of what happened in the Chinese agreement was for them to purchase some soybeans. We don't even know if that will happen, but it didn't get at the real ways China hurts us. He spoke about the desire for a bipartisan infrastructure bill. We Senate Democrats put together a $1 trillion bill 3 years ago, and the President hasn't shown any interest in discussing it. In fact, when Speaker Pelosi and I went to visit him about infrastructure, he walked out. This is typical of Donald Trump. In his speech, he bragged about all of these things he wants to do or is doing, but his actions belie his words. Maybe the best metaphor was his claim to bring democracy to Venezuela. There was a big policy there. It flopped. If the policy were working, Juan Guaido wouldn't have been in the balcony here. He would have been in Venezuela. He would have been sitting in the President's palace or at least have been waging a fight to win. He was here--and the President brags about his Venezuela policy? Give us a break. He hasn't brought an end to the Maduro regime. The Maduro regime is more powerful today and more entrenched today than it was when the President began his anti-Maduro fight--the same thing with North Korea, the same thing with China, the same thing with Russia, the same thing with Syria. The fact is, when President Trump gets over an hour to speak, the number of mistruths, mischaracterizations, exaggerations, and contradictions is breathtaking. No other President comes close. The old expression says: ``Watch what I do, not what I say.'' What the President does will be revealed on Monday in his budget. That is what he wants to do. If past is prologue, almost everything in that budget will contradict what he will have said in his speech. In the past, he has cut money for healthcare, cut money for medical research, cut money for infrastructure, cut money for education, cut money to help kids with college--every one of those things. Ladies and gentlemen, I have faith in the American people. They will not be fooled. They are used to it. They can tell a little show here--a nonreality show--when they see one. They know it is a show. It is done for their amusement, for their titillation, but it doesn't improve America. Working people are not happy. The middle class is struggling to stay in the middle class, and those struggling to get to the middle class find it harder to get there. Their path is steeper. Far more than the President's speech, the President's budget is what truly reveals his priorities. The budget will be the truth serum, and in a few days, the American people will see how many of the President's words here are reality. I expect very few will be. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

2020-01-06

Mr. SCHUMER

Senate

CREC-2020-02-05-pt1-PgS872-2

formal

coincidence

antisemitic

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, over the last months, our country has been consumed by a single word, one that we don't use often in our ordinary parlance. That word, of course, is ``impeachment.'' It has filled our news channels, our Twitter feeds, and dinner conversations. It has led to a wide-ranging debate on everything from the constitutional doctrines of the separation of powers to the due process of law--two concepts which are the most fundamental building blocks of who we are as a nation. It has even prompted those who typically have no interest in politics to tune into C-SPAN or into their favorite cable news channels. The impeachment of a President of the United States is simply the gravest undertaking we can pursue in this country. It is the nuclear option in our Constitution--the choice of last resort--when a President has committed a crime so serious that Congress must act rather than leave the choice to the voters in the election. The Framers of the Constitution granted this awesome power to the U.S. Congress and placed their confidence in the Senate to use only when absolutely necessary, when there is no other choice. This is a rare, historic moment for the Members of this Chamber. This has been faced by the Senate only on two previous occasions during our Constitution's 232-year history--only two times previously. We should be extraordinarily vigilant in ensuring that the impeachment power does not become a regular feature of our differences and, in the process, cheapen the vote of the American people. Soon, Members of the Senate will determine whether, for the first time in our history, a President will be removed from office, and then we will decide whether he will be barred from the ballot in 2020. The question all Senators have to answer is, Did the President commit, in the words of the Constitution, a high crime and misdemeanor that warrants his removal from office or should he be acquitted of the charges made by the House? I did my best to listen intently to both sides as they presented their cases during the trial, and I am confident in saying that President Trump should be acquitted and not removed from office. First, the Constitution gives the Congress the power to impeach and remove a President from office only for treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors, but the two Articles of Impeachment passed by the House of Representatives fail to meet that standard. The first charge, as we know, is abuse of power. House Democrats alleged that the President withheld military aid from Ukraine in exchange for investigations of Joe and HunterBiden. But they failed to bring forward compelling and unassailable evidence of any crime--again, the Constitution talks about treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors; clearly, a criminal standard--and thus failed to meet their burden of proof. Certainly, the House managers did not meet the high burden required to remove the President from office, effectively nullifying the will of tens of millions of Americans just months before the next election. What is more, the House's vague charge in the first article is equivalent to acts considered and rejected by the Framers of our Constitution. That brings us to the second article we are considering--obstruction of Congress. During the House inquiry, Democrats were upset because some of the President's closest advisers--and their most sought-after witnesses--did not testify. To be clear, some of the executive branch witnesses were among the 13 witnesses whose testimony we did hear during the Senate trial. But for those witnesses for whom it was clear the administration would claim a privilege, almost certainly leading to a long court battle, the House declined to issue the subpoenas and certainly did not seek judicial enforcement. Rather than addressing the privilege claims in court, as happened in the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, the Democratic managers moved to impeach President Trump for obstruction of Congress for protecting the Presidency itself from a partisan abuse of power by the House. Removing the President from office for asserting long-recognized and constitutionally grounded privileges that have been invoked by both Republican and Democratic Presidents would set a very dangerous precedent and would do violence to the Constitution's separation of powers design. In effect, it would make the Presidency itself subservient to Congress. The father of our Constitution, James Madison, warned against allowing the impeachment power to create a Presidential tenure at the pleasure of the Senate. Even more concerning, at every turn throughout this process, the House Democrats violated President Trump's right to due process of law. All American law is built on a constitutional foundation securing basic rights and rules of fairness for a citizen accused of wrongdoing. It is undisputed that the House excluded the President's legal team from both the closed-door testimony and almost the entirety of the House's 78-day inquiry. They channeled personal, policy, and political grievances and attempted to use the most solemn responsibility of Congress to bring down a political rival in a partisan process. It is no secret that Democrats' crusade to remove the President began more than 3 years ago on the very day he was inaugurated. On January 20, 2017, the Washington Post ran a story with the headline ``The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.'' At first, Speaker Pelosi wisely resisted. Less than a year ago, she said, ``Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there is something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path because it divides the country.'' And she was right. But when she couldn't hold back the stampede of her caucus, she did a 180-degree about-face. She encouraged House Democrats to rush through an impeachment inquiry before an arbitrary Christmas deadline. In the end, the articles passed with support from only a single party--not bipartisan. The bipartisanship the Speaker claimed was necessary was actually opposed to the impeachment of the President; that is, Democrats and Republicans voted in opposition to the Articles of Impeachment. Only Democrats voted for the Articles of Impeachment in the House. Once the articles finally made it to the Senate after a confusing, 28-day delay, Speaker Pelosi tried to have Senator Schumer--the Democratic leader here--use Speaker Pelosi's playbook, and he staged a number of political votes every Member of the Senate knew would fail, just so he could secure some perceived political advantage against Republican Senators in the 2020 election. What should be a solemn, constitutional undertaking became partisan guerilla warfare to take down President Trump and make Senator Schumer the next majority leader of the U.S. Senate. All of this was done on the eve of an election and just days shy of the first primary in Iowa. Well, to say the timing was a coincidence would be laughable. This partisan impeachment process could not only remove the President from office, it would also potentially prevent his name from appearing on the ballot in November. We are only 9 months away from an election--9 months away from the American people voting on the direction of our country--but our Democratic colleagues don't trust the American people, so they have taken matters into their own hands. This politically motivated impeachment sets a dangerous precedent. This is a very important point. This is not just about President Trump; this is about the Office of the Presidency and what precedent a conviction and removal would set for our Constitution and for our future. If successful, this would give a green light to future Congresses to weaponize impeachment to defeat a political opponent for any action--even a failure to kowtow to Congress's wishes. Impeachment is a profoundly serious matter that must be handled as such. It cannot become the Hail Mary pass of a party to remove a President, effectively nullifying an election and interfering in the next. I believe--I think we should all believe--that the results of the next election should be decided by the American people, not by Congress. The decision to remove a President from office requires undeniable evidence of a high crime. That is the language chosen by the Framers of our Constitution. But despite our colleagues' best attempts, the facts they presented simply don't add up to that standard. House managers failed to meet their heavy burden of proof that President Trump, beyond a reasonable doubt, committed a crime, let alone a high crime; therefore, I will not vote to convict the President. I hope our Democratic colleagues will finally accept the result of this trial--just as they have not accepted the result of the 2016 election--and I hope they won't take the advice of Congresswoman Waters, Maxine Waters in the House, and open a second impeachment inquiry. It is time for our country to come together to heal the wounds that divide us and to get the people's work done. There is no doubt, as Speaker Pelosi observed in March of 2019, that impeachment is a source of division in our country, and it is also a period of great sadness. If this partisan impeachment were to succeed, my greatest fear is it would become a routine process for every President who serves with a House majority of the opposite party, and we would find ourselves in a recurring impeachment nightmare every time we elect a new President. Our country is deeply divided and damaged by this partisan impeachment process. It is time for us to bring it to a close and to let the wounds from this unnecessary and misguided episode heal.

2020-01-06

Mr. CORNYN

Senate

CREC-2020-02-05-pt1-PgS873

formal

single

homophobic

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, over the last months, our country has been consumed by a single word, one that we don't use often in our ordinary parlance. That word, of course, is ``impeachment.'' It has filled our news channels, our Twitter feeds, and dinner conversations. It has led to a wide-ranging debate on everything from the constitutional doctrines of the separation of powers to the due process of law--two concepts which are the most fundamental building blocks of who we are as a nation. It has even prompted those who typically have no interest in politics to tune into C-SPAN or into their favorite cable news channels. The impeachment of a President of the United States is simply the gravest undertaking we can pursue in this country. It is the nuclear option in our Constitution--the choice of last resort--when a President has committed a crime so serious that Congress must act rather than leave the choice to the voters in the election. The Framers of the Constitution granted this awesome power to the U.S. Congress and placed their confidence in the Senate to use only when absolutely necessary, when there is no other choice. This is a rare, historic moment for the Members of this Chamber. This has been faced by the Senate only on two previous occasions during our Constitution's 232-year history--only two times previously. We should be extraordinarily vigilant in ensuring that the impeachment power does not become a regular feature of our differences and, in the process, cheapen the vote of the American people. Soon, Members of the Senate will determine whether, for the first time in our history, a President will be removed from office, and then we will decide whether he will be barred from the ballot in 2020. The question all Senators have to answer is, Did the President commit, in the words of the Constitution, a high crime and misdemeanor that warrants his removal from office or should he be acquitted of the charges made by the House? I did my best to listen intently to both sides as they presented their cases during the trial, and I am confident in saying that President Trump should be acquitted and not removed from office. First, the Constitution gives the Congress the power to impeach and remove a President from office only for treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors, but the two Articles of Impeachment passed by the House of Representatives fail to meet that standard. The first charge, as we know, is abuse of power. House Democrats alleged that the President withheld military aid from Ukraine in exchange for investigations of Joe and HunterBiden. But they failed to bring forward compelling and unassailable evidence of any crime--again, the Constitution talks about treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors; clearly, a criminal standard--and thus failed to meet their burden of proof. Certainly, the House managers did not meet the high burden required to remove the President from office, effectively nullifying the will of tens of millions of Americans just months before the next election. What is more, the House's vague charge in the first article is equivalent to acts considered and rejected by the Framers of our Constitution. That brings us to the second article we are considering--obstruction of Congress. During the House inquiry, Democrats were upset because some of the President's closest advisers--and their most sought-after witnesses--did not testify. To be clear, some of the executive branch witnesses were among the 13 witnesses whose testimony we did hear during the Senate trial. But for those witnesses for whom it was clear the administration would claim a privilege, almost certainly leading to a long court battle, the House declined to issue the subpoenas and certainly did not seek judicial enforcement. Rather than addressing the privilege claims in court, as happened in the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, the Democratic managers moved to impeach President Trump for obstruction of Congress for protecting the Presidency itself from a partisan abuse of power by the House. Removing the President from office for asserting long-recognized and constitutionally grounded privileges that have been invoked by both Republican and Democratic Presidents would set a very dangerous precedent and would do violence to the Constitution's separation of powers design. In effect, it would make the Presidency itself subservient to Congress. The father of our Constitution, James Madison, warned against allowing the impeachment power to create a Presidential tenure at the pleasure of the Senate. Even more concerning, at every turn throughout this process, the House Democrats violated President Trump's right to due process of law. All American law is built on a constitutional foundation securing basic rights and rules of fairness for a citizen accused of wrongdoing. It is undisputed that the House excluded the President's legal team from both the closed-door testimony and almost the entirety of the House's 78-day inquiry. They channeled personal, policy, and political grievances and attempted to use the most solemn responsibility of Congress to bring down a political rival in a partisan process. It is no secret that Democrats' crusade to remove the President began more than 3 years ago on the very day he was inaugurated. On January 20, 2017, the Washington Post ran a story with the headline ``The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.'' At first, Speaker Pelosi wisely resisted. Less than a year ago, she said, ``Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there is something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path because it divides the country.'' And she was right. But when she couldn't hold back the stampede of her caucus, she did a 180-degree about-face. She encouraged House Democrats to rush through an impeachment inquiry before an arbitrary Christmas deadline. In the end, the articles passed with support from only a single party--not bipartisan. The bipartisanship the Speaker claimed was necessary was actually opposed to the impeachment of the President; that is, Democrats and Republicans voted in opposition to the Articles of Impeachment. Only Democrats voted for the Articles of Impeachment in the House. Once the articles finally made it to the Senate after a confusing, 28-day delay, Speaker Pelosi tried to have Senator Schumer--the Democratic leader here--use Speaker Pelosi's playbook, and he staged a number of political votes every Member of the Senate knew would fail, just so he could secure some perceived political advantage against Republican Senators in the 2020 election. What should be a solemn, constitutional undertaking became partisan guerilla warfare to take down President Trump and make Senator Schumer the next majority leader of the U.S. Senate. All of this was done on the eve of an election and just days shy of the first primary in Iowa. Well, to say the timing was a coincidence would be laughable. This partisan impeachment process could not only remove the President from office, it would also potentially prevent his name from appearing on the ballot in November. We are only 9 months away from an election--9 months away from the American people voting on the direction of our country--but our Democratic colleagues don't trust the American people, so they have taken matters into their own hands. This politically motivated impeachment sets a dangerous precedent. This is a very important point. This is not just about President Trump; this is about the Office of the Presidency and what precedent a conviction and removal would set for our Constitution and for our future. If successful, this would give a green light to future Congresses to weaponize impeachment to defeat a political opponent for any action--even a failure to kowtow to Congress's wishes. Impeachment is a profoundly serious matter that must be handled as such. It cannot become the Hail Mary pass of a party to remove a President, effectively nullifying an election and interfering in the next. I believe--I think we should all believe--that the results of the next election should be decided by the American people, not by Congress. The decision to remove a President from office requires undeniable evidence of a high crime. That is the language chosen by the Framers of our Constitution. But despite our colleagues' best attempts, the facts they presented simply don't add up to that standard. House managers failed to meet their heavy burden of proof that President Trump, beyond a reasonable doubt, committed a crime, let alone a high crime; therefore, I will not vote to convict the President. I hope our Democratic colleagues will finally accept the result of this trial--just as they have not accepted the result of the 2016 election--and I hope they won't take the advice of Congresswoman Waters, Maxine Waters in the House, and open a second impeachment inquiry. It is time for our country to come together to heal the wounds that divide us and to get the people's work done. There is no doubt, as Speaker Pelosi observed in March of 2019, that impeachment is a source of division in our country, and it is also a period of great sadness. If this partisan impeachment were to succeed, my greatest fear is it would become a routine process for every President who serves with a House majority of the opposite party, and we would find ourselves in a recurring impeachment nightmare every time we elect a new President. Our country is deeply divided and damaged by this partisan impeachment process. It is time for us to bring it to a close and to let the wounds from this unnecessary and misguided episode heal.

2020-01-06

Mr. CORNYN

Senate

CREC-2020-02-05-pt1-PgS873

formal

XX

transphobic

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 826) expressing disapproval of the Trump administration's harmful actions towards Medicaid, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.

2020-01-06

The SPEAKER pro tempore

House

CREC-2020-02-06-pt1-PgH928-2

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: 3739. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Office of Electricity, Department of Energy, transmitting a report titled, ``Potential Benefits of High-Power, High-Capacity Batteries'', pursuant to H.R. 5895; Public Law 115-244; to the Committee on Appropriations. 3740. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting notification that, as a result of confirmed cases of 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a determination that a public health emergency exists and has existed since January 27, 2020, nationwide, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 247d(a); July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, Sec. 319(a) (as amended by Public Law 107-188, Sec. 144(a)); (116 Stat. 630); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 3741. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Libya that was declared in Executive Order 13566 of February 25, 2011, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257) and 50 U.S.C. 1703(c); Public Law 95-223, Sec 204(c); (91 Stat. 1627); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 3742. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six- month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Mali that was declared in Executive Order 13882 of July 26, 2019, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257) and 50 U.S.C. 1703(c); Public Law 95-223, Sec 204(c); (91 Stat. 1627); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 3743. A letter from the Acting Director, International Cooperation, Acquisition and Sustainment, Office of the Undersecretary Department of Defense, transmitting a Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Defense of the United States of America and the Department of Defence of Australia, Transmittal No. 03-20, pursuant to Sec. 27(f) of the Arms Export Control Act and Executive Order 13637; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 3744. A letter from the Acting Director, International Cooperation, Acquisition and Sustainment, Office of the Undersecretary Department of Defense, transmitting a notification of the Department's intent to sign an Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Projects, Transmittal No. 02-20, pursuant to Sec. 27(f) of the Arms Export Control Act and Executive Order 13637; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 3745. A letter from the Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting the Bureau's 2020 Annual Performance Plan and Report, and Budget Overview, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1115(b); Public Law 111-352, Sec. 3; (124 Stat. 3867); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. 3746. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for General Law, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a notification of a discontinuation of service in acting role, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681- 614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. 3747. A letter from the Chief Human Capital Officer, Small Business Administration, transmitting a notification of a nomination and an action on nomination, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. 3748. A letter from the Chief, Regulatory Development Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's interim final rule -- Extension of Compliance Date for Entry- Level Driver Training [Docket No.: FMCSA-2007-27748] (RIN: 2126-AC25) received February 5, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

2020-01-06

Unknown

House

CREC-2020-02-06-pt1-PgH933-3

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. 3413) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide for certain acquisition authorities for the Under Secretary of Management of the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.

2020-01-06

The SPEAKER pro tempore

House

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgH1000

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-2020-02-10-pt1-PgH981-4

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. 2932) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to ensure that the needs of children are considered in homeland security planning, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.

2020-01-06

The SPEAKER pro tempore

House

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgH999-5

formal

single

homophobic

Impeachment Trial Acknowledgments Mr. President, on a totally unrelated matter, as the impeachment trial ended last week, I offered preliminary thanks to a few of the individuals whose outstanding service helped the institution fulfill this unique and challenging responsibility. Rising to the occasion for just the third time in Senate history, it took herculean efforts from a long list of hard-working and dedicated people. So I would like to take a little bit of time this afternoon to share some Senate gratitude that too often goes unexpressed. After I name some key individuals and offices within the Senate, I will submit a fuller list for the Record. First, thanks to the Sergeant at Arms, Mike Stenger, and his entire team, especially the tremendous efforts of our Deputy Sergeant at Arms, Jennifer Hemingway; our protocol experts, including Becky Schaaf and Carly Flick; Krista Beale and Bob Shelton of Capitol and Chamber Operations; and, of course, Grace Ridgeway and her remarkable Capitol Facilities team. Many other offices had to go far above and beyond their normal duties:the executive office, doorkeepers, Press Gallery directors, Printing and Graphics, the Counsel, the Recording Studio, the Appointments Desk, the Switchboard, and the Chief Information Officer. Thanks, of course, to the Secretary of the Senate, Julie Adams, and all of those vital Senate offices. In particular, I have to single out our Parliamentarians, Elizabeth MacDonough and Leigh Hildebrand, and Parliamentary Clerk Christy Amatos. This expert team of professionals sacrificed nights, weekends, and holidays to ensure that this institution was ready to navigate little-charted waters, follow infrequently used rules, and track with the letter of the rules at every turn. We are so grateful. Many others made huge contributions as well: the offices of the Legislative Clerk, the Official Reporters of Debates, the Journal Clerk, Captioning Services, the Senate Historian, Senate Security, the Curator's Office, the Senate Library, and the Office of Printing and Document Services. Thanks also to the Architect of the Capitol's team for making sure our physical plant was up to snuff, to Chairman Roy Blunt on the Rules Committee and their staff, and to the Office of Senate Legal Counsel and the Government Publishing Office. As I mentioned last week, we are hugely grateful to the Capitol Police, the Senate pages, and the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, and his staff. I would like to recognize Erin Sager Vaughn, on the staff of the Democratic Leader, Senator Schumer, for her many efforts, and all the offices on both sides, particularly the staff assistants whose days became far busier during matters of especially great public interest. Before I conclude, I need to thank several more players, specifically, on the Republican side and in my own office. Thanks to Chairman Lindsey Graham's staff on the Judiciary Committee, who poured enormous work into this process, particularly Brendan Chestnut and Gabi Michalak; to Chairman Grassley's team on Senate Finance and to our Majority Whip, Senator Thune, and the Whip office. I am enormously grateful to Laura Dove, the Secretary for the Majority, for literally working around the clock to listen carefully to our Members and map out the complex strategy for the Senate to fulfill our duty. Laura sat on the dais for this trial just like her father Robert Dove before her, who was serving as Senate Parliamentarian in 1999. Huge thanks to Robert Duncan, the Assistant Secretary, and their entirely stellar Cloakroom team: Chris Tuck, Megan Mercer, Noelle Ringel, Tony Hanagan, Katherine Foster, Brian Canfield, and Abigail Baker. We very simply could not have done this without you. And last, but certainly not least, I need to thank my own staff. Working for Senate leadership tends to mean there is no normal. There is no easy day. Call it an occupational hazard, but even by those standards, the past several months have required extraordinary efforts from my talented team. Andrew Ferguson, my chief counsel, became a leading expert on every component of impeachment seemingly overnight and offered invaluable counsel, guidance, and leadership at every single stage of this process. Thanks as well to Robert Karem, my national security adviser, and Jim Neill and Erica Suares; to my communications director, David Popp and the entire team he oversees, led by Doug Andres, Andrew Quinn, and Scott Sloofman, including Dylan Vorbach, and, especially, the crack research team of Robert Utsey and David Hauptmann. Thanks to Sarah Fairchild, Alexandra Jenkins, and our operations team of Victoria Mason, Spencer Abraham, and Elise Stebick. Thanks to my Kentucky office team, led by Phil Maxson, and my in-State offices, led by Terry Carmack, for continuing their crucial work while Washington was literally consumed by impeachment. Most of all, I need to thank my staff's fearless leaders, Scott Raab, deputy chief of staff for Policy; Stefanie Muchow, my deputy chief of staff for operations, for her enormous efforts day and night; and Sharon Soderstrom, my chief of staff. I rely on Sharon's wisdom, expertise, and impeccable judgment every single day. I cannot thank her enough. With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the more comprehensive list of individuals to thank be printed in the Record.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS949-10

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Nomination of Andrew Lynn Brasher Mr. President, now, about the nomination of Mr. Brasher, now that the impeachment trial of the President is over, Leader McConnell is wasting no time getting us back to what seems to be his primary goal: rubberstamping unqualified and extreme judicial nominations. This week the Senate will consider the nomination of Andrew Brasher to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Brasher's primary qualification to sit on the Federal bench seems to be the 6\1/2\ months--6\1/2\ months--he spent on the district court in Alabama. Let me repeat that. Senate Republicans installed Brasher as district court judge less than 7 months before moving to elevate him to an appellate court. I have never heard of anything like this. The Senate majority is asking us to promote a candidate for circuit court judgeship who has less than a year of experience as a judge. But he is not just unqualified. Maybe they are promoting him so quickly because they love the fact that his views are so wildly out of the mainstream. As Alabama's solicitor general, Brasher fought against women's reproductive rights, which three-quarters of Americans believe in; commonsense gun safety laws, which 90 percent of Americans believe in; and marriage equality, which the majority of Americans believe in. He employed farfetched legal theories that were overruled by the courts, including Justice Scalia. Mr. Brasher shamefully spent his career defending voter suppression efforts. So less than 1 week after covering up the President's attempt to cheat in the next election, Senate Republicans are moving forward to reward a nominee who supports voter suppression. Both actions smack of contempt for the democratic process and a blatant disregard for the franchise of American citizens, the thing many of our young men and women have died for throughout the century--the right to vote. Mr. Brasher's nomination to the circuit court is another disgrace--an absolute disgrace--to our Federal judiciary. Every Senator should vote against it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS954-2

formal

based

white supremacist

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today following Senate acquittal in the impeachment trial of President Trump. After a 2-week trial, the U.S. Senate has delivered impartial justice. Make no mistake: Senate acquittal is the final judgment, forever clearing President Trump. The House clearly made serious mistakes. Never before has a President been impeached with no underlying crime, no defense counsel, and not a single Republican vote. It was purely partisan and totally political. The House overstepped its authority. The Senate, however, according to the Constitution, has the final word. The Senate followed the law. The Senate held a fair trial. We used the bipartisan Clinton trial format. These rules ensured both sides full and equal time. Let's not forget: In the House, the President's rights were ignored. He had no voice, no due process, no defense. The Senate allowed the President to defend himself, and his defense team presented a fact-based case. White House lawyers detailed the President's legitimate, long-held concerns over Ukraine corruption. The President's legal team made a strong case against the House impeachment articles. House managers, meanwhile, failed to prove their case. Rather than focus on facts, they appeared to be playing to the cameras. Incredibly, House managers attacked the Senate jury, accusing Republicans of ``corruption'' and ``cover-up.'' House managers played for time, repeating speeches, demanding more witnesses we didn't need. In reality, it was a weak case. There were no offenses that rose to the Constitution's requirement of ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The House process was one-sided from the start. For political purposes, Speaker Pelosi rushed the impeachment vote by Christmas, claiming urgency. Then her sense of urgency disappeared. She proceeded to delay the Senate trial for 4 weeks. The Speaker waited 33 days to send us the Articles of Impeachment. This begs the question: Why delay the removal of a President the Democrats in the House claim is ``dangerous''? Still, the Speaker insisted this spectacle was ``solemn,'' even prayerful. Then came her strangely irreverent signing ceremony. Nothing says solemn like souvenir signing pens. The bottom line is: Partisan impeachment is poison--poison--for our democracy. Senate acquittal is the antidote. Impeachment has hurt and divided this country. It has also delayed important work on behalf of the American people. Congress needs to now come together and move forward. Look at the incredible results we are already seeing under this President. Thanks to tax and regulatory relief, our economy is booming. American workers are winning. We are seeing record job growth: 7 million new jobs, 500,000 new manufacturing jobs, and 50-year-low unemployment. Middle-class and blue-collar wages are rising. Household wealth is soaring. Consumer confidence is at record highs. Add to that the President's America-first trade deals. TheU.S.-Mexico-Canada deal, deals with China, Japan, they are a boon for our farmers and for our workers. What is more, we have unleashed American energy. The U.S. is now No. 1 in oil and in natural gas. We no longer need Middle East oil. We have also confirmed 187 highly qualified Federal judges. Above all, we are keeping the country safe and secure. President Trump has completely rebuilt our military. Yet partisan impeachment has blocked progress. Congress has learned its lesson: Impeachment, if it is to ever happen again, must be bipartisan, fair, and rare. Senate acquittal is the final judgment. Now, we are back to work for the American people. We are looking forward to the important work ahead, to continuing our progress on priorities like lowering prescription drug costs, securing our border, and fixing our aging roads and bridges. The 2020 Presidential election is fast approaching. In fact, voting has already occurred in Iowa. It is time for the American people to decide who serves as President. It is time for Congress to get back to work. Thank you.

2020-01-06

Mr. BARRASSO

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS957

formal

blue

antisemitic

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today following Senate acquittal in the impeachment trial of President Trump. After a 2-week trial, the U.S. Senate has delivered impartial justice. Make no mistake: Senate acquittal is the final judgment, forever clearing President Trump. The House clearly made serious mistakes. Never before has a President been impeached with no underlying crime, no defense counsel, and not a single Republican vote. It was purely partisan and totally political. The House overstepped its authority. The Senate, however, according to the Constitution, has the final word. The Senate followed the law. The Senate held a fair trial. We used the bipartisan Clinton trial format. These rules ensured both sides full and equal time. Let's not forget: In the House, the President's rights were ignored. He had no voice, no due process, no defense. The Senate allowed the President to defend himself, and his defense team presented a fact-based case. White House lawyers detailed the President's legitimate, long-held concerns over Ukraine corruption. The President's legal team made a strong case against the House impeachment articles. House managers, meanwhile, failed to prove their case. Rather than focus on facts, they appeared to be playing to the cameras. Incredibly, House managers attacked the Senate jury, accusing Republicans of ``corruption'' and ``cover-up.'' House managers played for time, repeating speeches, demanding more witnesses we didn't need. In reality, it was a weak case. There were no offenses that rose to the Constitution's requirement of ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The House process was one-sided from the start. For political purposes, Speaker Pelosi rushed the impeachment vote by Christmas, claiming urgency. Then her sense of urgency disappeared. She proceeded to delay the Senate trial for 4 weeks. The Speaker waited 33 days to send us the Articles of Impeachment. This begs the question: Why delay the removal of a President the Democrats in the House claim is ``dangerous''? Still, the Speaker insisted this spectacle was ``solemn,'' even prayerful. Then came her strangely irreverent signing ceremony. Nothing says solemn like souvenir signing pens. The bottom line is: Partisan impeachment is poison--poison--for our democracy. Senate acquittal is the antidote. Impeachment has hurt and divided this country. It has also delayed important work on behalf of the American people. Congress needs to now come together and move forward. Look at the incredible results we are already seeing under this President. Thanks to tax and regulatory relief, our economy is booming. American workers are winning. We are seeing record job growth: 7 million new jobs, 500,000 new manufacturing jobs, and 50-year-low unemployment. Middle-class and blue-collar wages are rising. Household wealth is soaring. Consumer confidence is at record highs. Add to that the President's America-first trade deals. TheU.S.-Mexico-Canada deal, deals with China, Japan, they are a boon for our farmers and for our workers. What is more, we have unleashed American energy. The U.S. is now No. 1 in oil and in natural gas. We no longer need Middle East oil. We have also confirmed 187 highly qualified Federal judges. Above all, we are keeping the country safe and secure. President Trump has completely rebuilt our military. Yet partisan impeachment has blocked progress. Congress has learned its lesson: Impeachment, if it is to ever happen again, must be bipartisan, fair, and rare. Senate acquittal is the final judgment. Now, we are back to work for the American people. We are looking forward to the important work ahead, to continuing our progress on priorities like lowering prescription drug costs, securing our border, and fixing our aging roads and bridges. The 2020 Presidential election is fast approaching. In fact, voting has already occurred in Iowa. It is time for the American people to decide who serves as President. It is time for Congress to get back to work. Thank you.

2020-01-06

Mr. BARRASSO

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS957

formal

single

homophobic

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today following Senate acquittal in the impeachment trial of President Trump. After a 2-week trial, the U.S. Senate has delivered impartial justice. Make no mistake: Senate acquittal is the final judgment, forever clearing President Trump. The House clearly made serious mistakes. Never before has a President been impeached with no underlying crime, no defense counsel, and not a single Republican vote. It was purely partisan and totally political. The House overstepped its authority. The Senate, however, according to the Constitution, has the final word. The Senate followed the law. The Senate held a fair trial. We used the bipartisan Clinton trial format. These rules ensured both sides full and equal time. Let's not forget: In the House, the President's rights were ignored. He had no voice, no due process, no defense. The Senate allowed the President to defend himself, and his defense team presented a fact-based case. White House lawyers detailed the President's legitimate, long-held concerns over Ukraine corruption. The President's legal team made a strong case against the House impeachment articles. House managers, meanwhile, failed to prove their case. Rather than focus on facts, they appeared to be playing to the cameras. Incredibly, House managers attacked the Senate jury, accusing Republicans of ``corruption'' and ``cover-up.'' House managers played for time, repeating speeches, demanding more witnesses we didn't need. In reality, it was a weak case. There were no offenses that rose to the Constitution's requirement of ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The House process was one-sided from the start. For political purposes, Speaker Pelosi rushed the impeachment vote by Christmas, claiming urgency. Then her sense of urgency disappeared. She proceeded to delay the Senate trial for 4 weeks. The Speaker waited 33 days to send us the Articles of Impeachment. This begs the question: Why delay the removal of a President the Democrats in the House claim is ``dangerous''? Still, the Speaker insisted this spectacle was ``solemn,'' even prayerful. Then came her strangely irreverent signing ceremony. Nothing says solemn like souvenir signing pens. The bottom line is: Partisan impeachment is poison--poison--for our democracy. Senate acquittal is the antidote. Impeachment has hurt and divided this country. It has also delayed important work on behalf of the American people. Congress needs to now come together and move forward. Look at the incredible results we are already seeing under this President. Thanks to tax and regulatory relief, our economy is booming. American workers are winning. We are seeing record job growth: 7 million new jobs, 500,000 new manufacturing jobs, and 50-year-low unemployment. Middle-class and blue-collar wages are rising. Household wealth is soaring. Consumer confidence is at record highs. Add to that the President's America-first trade deals. TheU.S.-Mexico-Canada deal, deals with China, Japan, they are a boon for our farmers and for our workers. What is more, we have unleashed American energy. The U.S. is now No. 1 in oil and in natural gas. We no longer need Middle East oil. We have also confirmed 187 highly qualified Federal judges. Above all, we are keeping the country safe and secure. President Trump has completely rebuilt our military. Yet partisan impeachment has blocked progress. Congress has learned its lesson: Impeachment, if it is to ever happen again, must be bipartisan, fair, and rare. Senate acquittal is the final judgment. Now, we are back to work for the American people. We are looking forward to the important work ahead, to continuing our progress on priorities like lowering prescription drug costs, securing our border, and fixing our aging roads and bridges. The 2020 Presidential election is fast approaching. In fact, voting has already occurred in Iowa. It is time for the American people to decide who serves as President. It is time for Congress to get back to work. Thank you.

2020-01-06

Mr. BARRASSO

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS957

formal

securing our border

anti-Latino

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today following Senate acquittal in the impeachment trial of President Trump. After a 2-week trial, the U.S. Senate has delivered impartial justice. Make no mistake: Senate acquittal is the final judgment, forever clearing President Trump. The House clearly made serious mistakes. Never before has a President been impeached with no underlying crime, no defense counsel, and not a single Republican vote. It was purely partisan and totally political. The House overstepped its authority. The Senate, however, according to the Constitution, has the final word. The Senate followed the law. The Senate held a fair trial. We used the bipartisan Clinton trial format. These rules ensured both sides full and equal time. Let's not forget: In the House, the President's rights were ignored. He had no voice, no due process, no defense. The Senate allowed the President to defend himself, and his defense team presented a fact-based case. White House lawyers detailed the President's legitimate, long-held concerns over Ukraine corruption. The President's legal team made a strong case against the House impeachment articles. House managers, meanwhile, failed to prove their case. Rather than focus on facts, they appeared to be playing to the cameras. Incredibly, House managers attacked the Senate jury, accusing Republicans of ``corruption'' and ``cover-up.'' House managers played for time, repeating speeches, demanding more witnesses we didn't need. In reality, it was a weak case. There were no offenses that rose to the Constitution's requirement of ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The House process was one-sided from the start. For political purposes, Speaker Pelosi rushed the impeachment vote by Christmas, claiming urgency. Then her sense of urgency disappeared. She proceeded to delay the Senate trial for 4 weeks. The Speaker waited 33 days to send us the Articles of Impeachment. This begs the question: Why delay the removal of a President the Democrats in the House claim is ``dangerous''? Still, the Speaker insisted this spectacle was ``solemn,'' even prayerful. Then came her strangely irreverent signing ceremony. Nothing says solemn like souvenir signing pens. The bottom line is: Partisan impeachment is poison--poison--for our democracy. Senate acquittal is the antidote. Impeachment has hurt and divided this country. It has also delayed important work on behalf of the American people. Congress needs to now come together and move forward. Look at the incredible results we are already seeing under this President. Thanks to tax and regulatory relief, our economy is booming. American workers are winning. We are seeing record job growth: 7 million new jobs, 500,000 new manufacturing jobs, and 50-year-low unemployment. Middle-class and blue-collar wages are rising. Household wealth is soaring. Consumer confidence is at record highs. Add to that the President's America-first trade deals. TheU.S.-Mexico-Canada deal, deals with China, Japan, they are a boon for our farmers and for our workers. What is more, we have unleashed American energy. The U.S. is now No. 1 in oil and in natural gas. We no longer need Middle East oil. We have also confirmed 187 highly qualified Federal judges. Above all, we are keeping the country safe and secure. President Trump has completely rebuilt our military. Yet partisan impeachment has blocked progress. Congress has learned its lesson: Impeachment, if it is to ever happen again, must be bipartisan, fair, and rare. Senate acquittal is the final judgment. Now, we are back to work for the American people. We are looking forward to the important work ahead, to continuing our progress on priorities like lowering prescription drug costs, securing our border, and fixing our aging roads and bridges. The 2020 Presidential election is fast approaching. In fact, voting has already occurred in Iowa. It is time for the American people to decide who serves as President. It is time for Congress to get back to work. Thank you.

2020-01-06

Mr. BARRASSO

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS957

formal

based

white supremacist

Ms. McSALLY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize one of the most influential and well-known forest ecologists in the Nation, Dr. Wally Covington of Flagstaff, AZ. Last month, Dr. Covington retired from his current position as regents' professor at the School of Forestry and the executive director of the Ecological Restoration Institute at Northern Arizona University. When we talk about the wildfire crisis afflicting the West, we frequently reference the need to thin our forests of the enormous number of small, dead, and dying trees that have fueled some of largest, deadliest, and most destructive mega fires ever seen in the United States. In my home State of Arizona, about one-quarter of our pine forests have been impacted by fire over the past two decades. In 2011, the largest wildfire in State history, the Wallow Fire, incinerated over a half million acres in a matter of weeks before finally burning out. And a nation mourned the loss of 19 brave wildland firefighters from Prescott, AZ, who gave their lives battling the Yarnell Hill Fire in 2013. These fires burn so hot and fast that they barrel through rural communities, insatiably consuming property in its path and, sometimes, human life too. We recognize that the fuel load is too high in many forests and that prescribed fires and fuel breaks alone are not enough to prevent mega-fires that crown atop forest canopies. Today, it is common sense that our fire-prone public lands need to be restored to their natural, fire-adapted state. It is difficult to imagine how this conventional wisdom shared across both sides of the aisle, and among the timber industry and environmental groups alike, was foreign, controversial, and, frankly, heretical only two decades ago. It was Dr. Covington's applied research in forest ecology and his tireless advocacy that showed us how reducing tree density through timber harvesting is not only beneficial, but also necessary if we want to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires. So when we talk about forest thinning, the country should know just how influential Dr. Wally Covington's contributions were to the practice of forest ecosystem restoration. Let me share a little bit of Dr. Covington's story with you. From a young age, Wally was exposed to the wonders of the great outdoors by his parents who first met and fell in love in Flagstaff. They instilled in him a profound appreciation for nature and a humbling perspective on humanity's impact on the land. At his father's urging, Wally studied the works of conservationist Aldo Leopold, who is regarded as the founder of the wilderness preservation movement and the philosophy of ``land ethics,'' which espouses the belief that man is not a conqueror of his environment, but a unique component of it. Later, Wally graduated from the University of North Texas with a degree in biology, and he planned to become a physician in pediatric oncology. However, the emotional toll of working with children with cancer left Wally disheartened. He departed medical school never to return. Still, that heart-wrenching experience taught Wally that he was a healer. Shaped by the burgeoning environmental movement of the 1970s, Wally answered another calling. He decided to pursue a master's in ecology from the University of New Mexico. It wasn't long before Wally's academic achievements led him to Yale University where he earned a doctorate in forestry in 1976. Dr. Covington was already an accomplished forest ecologist by the time he joined NAU. At Yale, he developed an innovative theory for predicting the carbon budgets of unharvested forests, a calculation known as ``Covington's curve'' that is still widely used in modern forestry. His next achievement, however, would transform how we view and manage our forestlands. For some time, Wally had been studying ponderosa pine trees, a type of evergreen species that dominates the landscape in the West. These iconic conifers span more than 27 million acres in the United States. Wally observed that our Nation's pine forests were out of balance, unhealthy, and highly susceptible to drought, insect infestation, and disease. A majority of the mega-fires or ``conflagrations'' impacting northern California, Montana, Arizona, and elsewhere were occurring in ponderosa pine forests. As a forest ecologist, Wally understood that fire plays a natural role in our forests. Historically, in North America, low intensity ground fire led to large, mature pine trees and forests that are naturally adapted to withstand fire. But modern wildfires in the West were now burning with such ferocious intensity that even the sturdiest of pine trees would literally boil to the point of exploding. Postfire conditions were no longer the regenerative force that ecologists had once studied. Soils were damaged, taking years to replenish their nutrients, and watersheds were more likely to experience long-term flooding and erosion. Wally once poignantly described the situation in an article he authored in the journal Nature in 2002: ``The dry forest ecosystems of the American West, especially those once dominated by open ponderosa pine forests, are in widespread collapse. We are now witnessing sudden leaps in aberrant ecosystem behavior long predicted by ecologists and conservation professionals. Trends over the past half-century show that the frequency, intensity and size of wildfires will increase--by orders of magnitude--the loss of biological diversity, property and human lives for many generations to come.'' Like any good healer, Dr. Covington worked tirelessly to diagnose the illness and devise a cure. As part of his research, Wally pored through historical records, old photographs, and land surveys dating back to the turn of the century. He listened to Native American Tribal members, the first inhabitants of our forests, who shared stories told and retold through the generations about elk and deer hunts in open canopied forests teeming with bountiful grasslands. Wally discovered that, in a very short time, about 50 years, the forest landscape of the West had substantially changed. He hypothesized, correctly, that man's presence had transformed our once fire-adapted, low-density forests into overstocked tinderboxes. Before there was a Forest Service, before westward expansion brought pioneers and homesteaders, the land, he estimated, supported around 50 to 100 pine trees per acre. In contrast, today's modern forests host roughly 300 percent more trees--sometimes as much as 1,000 trees per acre--a number far greater than the natural ecosystem can support. This meant that the West was overloaded with a dangerous amount of kindling fuel. To prove his theory, Wally ran experiments. Beginning in 1992, on a modest 10-acre parcel of Forest Service land in the Gus Pearson Natural Area, Wally established three test plots. The first plot was used as the control, its post-settlement state preserved as-is. The second plot was thinned of excess pine trees. On the third plot, the trees were thinned to simulate pre-settlement conditions and then subjected to prescribed fire, the kind of controlled burns routinely used by the Forest Service to clear our low-lying fuels from the forest floor. His test showed that fire behavior dramatically decreased on the plot that was thinned. Trees didn't suffer the same trauma found on the other two plots and in fact responded positively by producing increased resin, which meant increased resistance to bark beetle infestation. Also, the number of species and amount of native grasses and plants increased improving both forage and habitat quality. Wally had successfully conducted the first science-based forest restoration project in history. Dr. Covington took his findings to Congress, the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and the National Academy of Sciences. He met with Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt under the Clinton administration and, later, Secretary Gale Norton under the George W. Bush administration, to convince them to implement forest restoration treatments. In many of his meetings, he would echo the old adage, ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' They listened, and Congress listened, as did my Arizona predecessors in the Senate. In 2003, he worked with Senator Jon Kyl to enact legislation like the Health Forests Restoration Act and also established the congressionally chartered Southwest EcologicalRestoration Institutes at NAU, Colorado State University, and New Mexico Highlands University, which assist the Forest Service in developing restoration projects across millions of acres of land. Today, the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior are working to mechanically thin millions of acres of forestlands across the West to make our forests more resilient to fire. It is a slow, expensive, and time-consuming prospect to reverse 50 years of forest mismanagement across a territory as vast as the United States, but the reward is worth it. In doing so, we are saving our forests, our homes, and human lives. I cannot overstate Dr. Covington's tremendous contribution to the field of forest ecology. Had it not been for Wally's work, his compassion for healing our unhealthy forests, and his drive to educate policymakers on the sound science behind forest restoration, I suspect our forests would be in far worse shape today. I am proud to recognize Dr. Covington, a fellow Arizonan. Our Nation owes Wally a debt of gratitude that we can never repay.

2020-01-06

Ms. McSALLY

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS960

formal

echo

antisemitic

Ms. McSALLY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize one of the most influential and well-known forest ecologists in the Nation, Dr. Wally Covington of Flagstaff, AZ. Last month, Dr. Covington retired from his current position as regents' professor at the School of Forestry and the executive director of the Ecological Restoration Institute at Northern Arizona University. When we talk about the wildfire crisis afflicting the West, we frequently reference the need to thin our forests of the enormous number of small, dead, and dying trees that have fueled some of largest, deadliest, and most destructive mega fires ever seen in the United States. In my home State of Arizona, about one-quarter of our pine forests have been impacted by fire over the past two decades. In 2011, the largest wildfire in State history, the Wallow Fire, incinerated over a half million acres in a matter of weeks before finally burning out. And a nation mourned the loss of 19 brave wildland firefighters from Prescott, AZ, who gave their lives battling the Yarnell Hill Fire in 2013. These fires burn so hot and fast that they barrel through rural communities, insatiably consuming property in its path and, sometimes, human life too. We recognize that the fuel load is too high in many forests and that prescribed fires and fuel breaks alone are not enough to prevent mega-fires that crown atop forest canopies. Today, it is common sense that our fire-prone public lands need to be restored to their natural, fire-adapted state. It is difficult to imagine how this conventional wisdom shared across both sides of the aisle, and among the timber industry and environmental groups alike, was foreign, controversial, and, frankly, heretical only two decades ago. It was Dr. Covington's applied research in forest ecology and his tireless advocacy that showed us how reducing tree density through timber harvesting is not only beneficial, but also necessary if we want to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires. So when we talk about forest thinning, the country should know just how influential Dr. Wally Covington's contributions were to the practice of forest ecosystem restoration. Let me share a little bit of Dr. Covington's story with you. From a young age, Wally was exposed to the wonders of the great outdoors by his parents who first met and fell in love in Flagstaff. They instilled in him a profound appreciation for nature and a humbling perspective on humanity's impact on the land. At his father's urging, Wally studied the works of conservationist Aldo Leopold, who is regarded as the founder of the wilderness preservation movement and the philosophy of ``land ethics,'' which espouses the belief that man is not a conqueror of his environment, but a unique component of it. Later, Wally graduated from the University of North Texas with a degree in biology, and he planned to become a physician in pediatric oncology. However, the emotional toll of working with children with cancer left Wally disheartened. He departed medical school never to return. Still, that heart-wrenching experience taught Wally that he was a healer. Shaped by the burgeoning environmental movement of the 1970s, Wally answered another calling. He decided to pursue a master's in ecology from the University of New Mexico. It wasn't long before Wally's academic achievements led him to Yale University where he earned a doctorate in forestry in 1976. Dr. Covington was already an accomplished forest ecologist by the time he joined NAU. At Yale, he developed an innovative theory for predicting the carbon budgets of unharvested forests, a calculation known as ``Covington's curve'' that is still widely used in modern forestry. His next achievement, however, would transform how we view and manage our forestlands. For some time, Wally had been studying ponderosa pine trees, a type of evergreen species that dominates the landscape in the West. These iconic conifers span more than 27 million acres in the United States. Wally observed that our Nation's pine forests were out of balance, unhealthy, and highly susceptible to drought, insect infestation, and disease. A majority of the mega-fires or ``conflagrations'' impacting northern California, Montana, Arizona, and elsewhere were occurring in ponderosa pine forests. As a forest ecologist, Wally understood that fire plays a natural role in our forests. Historically, in North America, low intensity ground fire led to large, mature pine trees and forests that are naturally adapted to withstand fire. But modern wildfires in the West were now burning with such ferocious intensity that even the sturdiest of pine trees would literally boil to the point of exploding. Postfire conditions were no longer the regenerative force that ecologists had once studied. Soils were damaged, taking years to replenish their nutrients, and watersheds were more likely to experience long-term flooding and erosion. Wally once poignantly described the situation in an article he authored in the journal Nature in 2002: ``The dry forest ecosystems of the American West, especially those once dominated by open ponderosa pine forests, are in widespread collapse. We are now witnessing sudden leaps in aberrant ecosystem behavior long predicted by ecologists and conservation professionals. Trends over the past half-century show that the frequency, intensity and size of wildfires will increase--by orders of magnitude--the loss of biological diversity, property and human lives for many generations to come.'' Like any good healer, Dr. Covington worked tirelessly to diagnose the illness and devise a cure. As part of his research, Wally pored through historical records, old photographs, and land surveys dating back to the turn of the century. He listened to Native American Tribal members, the first inhabitants of our forests, who shared stories told and retold through the generations about elk and deer hunts in open canopied forests teeming with bountiful grasslands. Wally discovered that, in a very short time, about 50 years, the forest landscape of the West had substantially changed. He hypothesized, correctly, that man's presence had transformed our once fire-adapted, low-density forests into overstocked tinderboxes. Before there was a Forest Service, before westward expansion brought pioneers and homesteaders, the land, he estimated, supported around 50 to 100 pine trees per acre. In contrast, today's modern forests host roughly 300 percent more trees--sometimes as much as 1,000 trees per acre--a number far greater than the natural ecosystem can support. This meant that the West was overloaded with a dangerous amount of kindling fuel. To prove his theory, Wally ran experiments. Beginning in 1992, on a modest 10-acre parcel of Forest Service land in the Gus Pearson Natural Area, Wally established three test plots. The first plot was used as the control, its post-settlement state preserved as-is. The second plot was thinned of excess pine trees. On the third plot, the trees were thinned to simulate pre-settlement conditions and then subjected to prescribed fire, the kind of controlled burns routinely used by the Forest Service to clear our low-lying fuels from the forest floor. His test showed that fire behavior dramatically decreased on the plot that was thinned. Trees didn't suffer the same trauma found on the other two plots and in fact responded positively by producing increased resin, which meant increased resistance to bark beetle infestation. Also, the number of species and amount of native grasses and plants increased improving both forage and habitat quality. Wally had successfully conducted the first science-based forest restoration project in history. Dr. Covington took his findings to Congress, the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and the National Academy of Sciences. He met with Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt under the Clinton administration and, later, Secretary Gale Norton under the George W. Bush administration, to convince them to implement forest restoration treatments. In many of his meetings, he would echo the old adage, ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' They listened, and Congress listened, as did my Arizona predecessors in the Senate. In 2003, he worked with Senator Jon Kyl to enact legislation like the Health Forests Restoration Act and also established the congressionally chartered Southwest EcologicalRestoration Institutes at NAU, Colorado State University, and New Mexico Highlands University, which assist the Forest Service in developing restoration projects across millions of acres of land. Today, the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior are working to mechanically thin millions of acres of forestlands across the West to make our forests more resilient to fire. It is a slow, expensive, and time-consuming prospect to reverse 50 years of forest mismanagement across a territory as vast as the United States, but the reward is worth it. In doing so, we are saving our forests, our homes, and human lives. I cannot overstate Dr. Covington's tremendous contribution to the field of forest ecology. Had it not been for Wally's work, his compassion for healing our unhealthy forests, and his drive to educate policymakers on the sound science behind forest restoration, I suspect our forests would be in far worse shape today. I am proud to recognize Dr. Covington, a fellow Arizonan. Our Nation owes Wally a debt of gratitude that we can never repay.

2020-01-06

Ms. McSALLY

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS960

formal

based

white supremacist

At 3:02 p.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 bills and joint resolutions, without amendment: S. 375. An act to improve efforts to identify and reduce Governmentwide improper payments, and for other purposes. S. 394. An act to amend the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 to improve the orderly transfer of the executive power during Presidential transitions. S.J. Res. 65. Joint resolution providing for the reappointment of John Fahey as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. S.J. Res. 67. Joint resolution providing for the reappointment of Risa Lavizzo-Mourey as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. The message further announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 1132. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to establish a grant program to support the restoration of San Francisco Bay. H.R. 1620. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program. H.R. 2247. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide assistance for programs and activities to protect the water quality of Puget Sound, and for other purposes. H.R. 2382. An act to amend title 5, United States Code, to repeal the requirement that the United States Postal Service prepay future retirement benefits, and for other purposes. H.R. 2474. An act to amend the National Labor Relations Act, the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, and the Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, and for other purposes. H.R. 3317. An act to permit the Scipio A. Jones Post Office in Little Rock, Arkansas, to accept and display a portrait of Scipio A. Jones, and for other purposes. H.R. 3830. An act to provide taxpayers with an improved understanding of Government programs through the disclosure of cost, performance, and areas of duplication among them, leverage existing data to achieve a functional Federal program inventory, and for other purposes. H.R. 3941. An act to enhance the innovation, security, and availability of cloud computing services used in the Federal Government by establishing the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program within the General Services Administration and by establishing a risk management, authorization, and continuous monitoring process to enable the Federal Government to leverage cloud computing services using a risk- based approach consistent with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 and cloud-based operations, and for other purposes. H.R. 3976. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 12711 East Jefferson Avenue in Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Aretha Franklin Post Office Building''. H.R. 4031. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for other purposes. H.R. 4044. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the National Estuary Program, and for other purposes. H.R. 4275. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program, and for other purposes. H.R. 4279. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 445 Main Street in Laceyville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Melinda Gene Piccotti Post Office''. H.R. 4305. An act to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot program on dog training therapy. H.R. 4794. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 8320 13th Avenue in Brooklyn, New York, as the ``Mother Frances Xavier Cabrini Post Office Building''. H.R. 4981. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2505 Derita Avenue in Charlotte, North Carolina, as the ``Julius L. Chambers Civil Rights Memorial Post Office''. H.R. 5037. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3703 North Main Street in Farmville, North Carolina, as the ``Walter B. Jones, Jr. Post Office''. H.R. 5214. An act to amend title 5, United States Code, to prevent fraud by representative payees. H.R. 5687. An act making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes. The message also announced that pursuant to 14 U.S.C. 1903(b), and the order of the House of January 3, 2019, the Speaker appoints the following Member on the part of the House of Representatives to the Board of Visitors to the United States Coast Guard Academy: Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. The message further announced that pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 4303, and the order of the House of January 3, 2019, the Speaker appoints the following Member of the House of Representatives to the Board of Trustees of Gallaudet University: Ms. Shalala of Florida. The message also announced that pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 4303, and the order of the House of January 3, 2019, the Speaker appoints the following Member of the House of Representatives to the Board of Trustees of Gallaudet University: Mr. Bucshon of Indiana.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS962

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

At 3:02 p.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 bills and joint resolutions, without amendment: S. 375. An act to improve efforts to identify and reduce Governmentwide improper payments, and for other purposes. S. 394. An act to amend the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 to improve the orderly transfer of the executive power during Presidential transitions. S.J. Res. 65. Joint resolution providing for the reappointment of John Fahey as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. S.J. Res. 67. Joint resolution providing for the reappointment of Risa Lavizzo-Mourey as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. The message further announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 1132. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to establish a grant program to support the restoration of San Francisco Bay. H.R. 1620. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program. H.R. 2247. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide assistance for programs and activities to protect the water quality of Puget Sound, and for other purposes. H.R. 2382. An act to amend title 5, United States Code, to repeal the requirement that the United States Postal Service prepay future retirement benefits, and for other purposes. H.R. 2474. An act to amend the National Labor Relations Act, the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, and the Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, and for other purposes. H.R. 3317. An act to permit the Scipio A. Jones Post Office in Little Rock, Arkansas, to accept and display a portrait of Scipio A. Jones, and for other purposes. H.R. 3830. An act to provide taxpayers with an improved understanding of Government programs through the disclosure of cost, performance, and areas of duplication among them, leverage existing data to achieve a functional Federal program inventory, and for other purposes. H.R. 3941. An act to enhance the innovation, security, and availability of cloud computing services used in the Federal Government by establishing the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program within the General Services Administration and by establishing a risk management, authorization, and continuous monitoring process to enable the Federal Government to leverage cloud computing services using a risk- based approach consistent with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 and cloud-based operations, and for other purposes. H.R. 3976. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 12711 East Jefferson Avenue in Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Aretha Franklin Post Office Building''. H.R. 4031. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for other purposes. H.R. 4044. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the National Estuary Program, and for other purposes. H.R. 4275. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program, and for other purposes. H.R. 4279. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 445 Main Street in Laceyville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Melinda Gene Piccotti Post Office''. H.R. 4305. An act to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot program on dog training therapy. H.R. 4794. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 8320 13th Avenue in Brooklyn, New York, as the ``Mother Frances Xavier Cabrini Post Office Building''. H.R. 4981. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2505 Derita Avenue in Charlotte, North Carolina, as the ``Julius L. Chambers Civil Rights Memorial Post Office''. H.R. 5037. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3703 North Main Street in Farmville, North Carolina, as the ``Walter B. Jones, Jr. Post Office''. H.R. 5214. An act to amend title 5, United States Code, to prevent fraud by representative payees. H.R. 5687. An act making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes. The message also announced that pursuant to 14 U.S.C. 1903(b), and the order of the House of January 3, 2019, the Speaker appoints the following Member on the part of the House of Representatives to the Board of Visitors to the United States Coast Guard Academy: Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. The message further announced that pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 4303, and the order of the House of January 3, 2019, the Speaker appoints the following Member of the House of Representatives to the Board of Trustees of Gallaudet University: Ms. Shalala of Florida. The message also announced that pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 4303, and the order of the House of January 3, 2019, the Speaker appoints the following Member of the House of Representatives to the Board of Trustees of Gallaudet University: Mr. Bucshon of Indiana.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS962

formal

Detroit

racist

At 3:02 p.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 bills and joint resolutions, without amendment: S. 375. An act to improve efforts to identify and reduce Governmentwide improper payments, and for other purposes. S. 394. An act to amend the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 to improve the orderly transfer of the executive power during Presidential transitions. S.J. Res. 65. Joint resolution providing for the reappointment of John Fahey as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. S.J. Res. 67. Joint resolution providing for the reappointment of Risa Lavizzo-Mourey as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. The message further announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 1132. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to establish a grant program to support the restoration of San Francisco Bay. H.R. 1620. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program. H.R. 2247. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide assistance for programs and activities to protect the water quality of Puget Sound, and for other purposes. H.R. 2382. An act to amend title 5, United States Code, to repeal the requirement that the United States Postal Service prepay future retirement benefits, and for other purposes. H.R. 2474. An act to amend the National Labor Relations Act, the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, and the Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, and for other purposes. H.R. 3317. An act to permit the Scipio A. Jones Post Office in Little Rock, Arkansas, to accept and display a portrait of Scipio A. Jones, and for other purposes. H.R. 3830. An act to provide taxpayers with an improved understanding of Government programs through the disclosure of cost, performance, and areas of duplication among them, leverage existing data to achieve a functional Federal program inventory, and for other purposes. H.R. 3941. An act to enhance the innovation, security, and availability of cloud computing services used in the Federal Government by establishing the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program within the General Services Administration and by establishing a risk management, authorization, and continuous monitoring process to enable the Federal Government to leverage cloud computing services using a risk- based approach consistent with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 and cloud-based operations, and for other purposes. H.R. 3976. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 12711 East Jefferson Avenue in Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Aretha Franklin Post Office Building''. H.R. 4031. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for other purposes. H.R. 4044. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the National Estuary Program, and for other purposes. H.R. 4275. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program, and for other purposes. H.R. 4279. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 445 Main Street in Laceyville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Melinda Gene Piccotti Post Office''. H.R. 4305. An act to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot program on dog training therapy. H.R. 4794. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 8320 13th Avenue in Brooklyn, New York, as the ``Mother Frances Xavier Cabrini Post Office Building''. H.R. 4981. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2505 Derita Avenue in Charlotte, North Carolina, as the ``Julius L. Chambers Civil Rights Memorial Post Office''. H.R. 5037. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3703 North Main Street in Farmville, North Carolina, as the ``Walter B. Jones, Jr. Post Office''. H.R. 5214. An act to amend title 5, United States Code, to prevent fraud by representative payees. H.R. 5687. An act making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes. The message also announced that pursuant to 14 U.S.C. 1903(b), and the order of the House of January 3, 2019, the Speaker appoints the following Member on the part of the House of Representatives to the Board of Visitors to the United States Coast Guard Academy: Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. The message further announced that pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 4303, and the order of the House of January 3, 2019, the Speaker appoints the following Member of the House of Representatives to the Board of Trustees of Gallaudet University: Ms. Shalala of Florida. The message also announced that pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 4303, and the order of the House of January 3, 2019, the Speaker appoints the following Member of the House of Representatives to the Board of Trustees of Gallaudet University: Mr. Bucshon of Indiana.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS962

formal

based

white supremacist

The following bills were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: H.R. 1620. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. H.R. 2247. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide assistance for programs and activities to protect the water quality of Puget Sound, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. H.R. 2474. An act to amend the National Labor Relations Act, the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, and the Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. H.R. 3317. An act to permit the Scipio A. Jones Post Office in Little Rock, Arkansas, to accept and display a portrait of Scipio A. Jones, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 3941. An act to enhance the innovation, security, and availability of cloud computing services used in the Federal Government by establishing the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program within the General Services Administration and by establishing a risk management, authorization, and continuous monitoring process to enable the Federal Government to leverage cloud computing services using a risk- based approach consistent with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 and cloud-based operations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 3976. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 12711 East Jefferson Avenue in Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Aretha Franklin Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 4031. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. H.R. 4275. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. H.R. 4279. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 445 Main Street in Laceyville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Melinda Gene Piccotti Post Office''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 4305. An act to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot program on dog training therapy; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. H.R. 4794. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 8320 13th Avenue in Brooklyn, New York, as the ``Mother Frances Xavier Cabrini Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 4981. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2505 Derita Avenue in Charlotte, North Carolina, as the ``Julius L. Chambers Civil Rights Memorial Post Office''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 5037. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3703 North Main Street in Farmville, North Carolina, as the ``Walter B. Jones, Jr. Post Office''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS963

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

The following bills were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: H.R. 1620. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. H.R. 2247. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide assistance for programs and activities to protect the water quality of Puget Sound, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. H.R. 2474. An act to amend the National Labor Relations Act, the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, and the Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. H.R. 3317. An act to permit the Scipio A. Jones Post Office in Little Rock, Arkansas, to accept and display a portrait of Scipio A. Jones, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 3941. An act to enhance the innovation, security, and availability of cloud computing services used in the Federal Government by establishing the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program within the General Services Administration and by establishing a risk management, authorization, and continuous monitoring process to enable the Federal Government to leverage cloud computing services using a risk- based approach consistent with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 and cloud-based operations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 3976. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 12711 East Jefferson Avenue in Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Aretha Franklin Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 4031. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. H.R. 4275. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. H.R. 4279. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 445 Main Street in Laceyville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Melinda Gene Piccotti Post Office''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 4305. An act to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot program on dog training therapy; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. H.R. 4794. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 8320 13th Avenue in Brooklyn, New York, as the ``Mother Frances Xavier Cabrini Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 4981. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2505 Derita Avenue in Charlotte, North Carolina, as the ``Julius L. Chambers Civil Rights Memorial Post Office''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 5037. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3703 North Main Street in Farmville, North Carolina, as the ``Walter B. Jones, Jr. Post Office''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS963

formal

Detroit

racist

The following bills were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: H.R. 1620. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. H.R. 2247. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide assistance for programs and activities to protect the water quality of Puget Sound, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. H.R. 2474. An act to amend the National Labor Relations Act, the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, and the Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. H.R. 3317. An act to permit the Scipio A. Jones Post Office in Little Rock, Arkansas, to accept and display a portrait of Scipio A. Jones, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 3941. An act to enhance the innovation, security, and availability of cloud computing services used in the Federal Government by establishing the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program within the General Services Administration and by establishing a risk management, authorization, and continuous monitoring process to enable the Federal Government to leverage cloud computing services using a risk- based approach consistent with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 and cloud-based operations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 3976. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 12711 East Jefferson Avenue in Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Aretha Franklin Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 4031. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. H.R. 4275. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. H.R. 4279. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 445 Main Street in Laceyville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Melinda Gene Piccotti Post Office''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 4305. An act to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot program on dog training therapy; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. H.R. 4794. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 8320 13th Avenue in Brooklyn, New York, as the ``Mother Frances Xavier Cabrini Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 4981. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2505 Derita Avenue in Charlotte, North Carolina, as the ``Julius L. Chambers Civil Rights Memorial Post Office''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 5037. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3703 North Main Street in Farmville, North Carolina, as the ``Walter B. Jones, Jr. Post Office''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS963

formal

cut taxes

racist

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, thank you, and I thank the Republican leader. Last month, while this body was trying, as we know--and failing--to hold the President accountable for betraying the American people, President Trump went to Davos, and he doubled down on another betrayal of the American people. While he was hobnobbing with the global elite in Switzerland, he let slip his plan, after his tax handouts to billionaires and corporations blew up the deficit--we know deficits now. Thanks to Republican governing, thanks tothis President's tax cut and my Republican colleagues going along with this tax cut that went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest people in this country, the budget deficit has just skyrocketed. We know all that. President Trump now wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. He wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. Today we got President Trump's budget. This document makes it clear how he wants to pay for his tax scam--on the backs of working families and seniors. I want to start with one that is of special interest in Ohio. We all know that just in the last 2 or 3 years--well, starting soon after President Trump was elected and then over about a year-and-a-half period, the Lordstown auto plant--about 4,500 jobs--shut down. President Trump had promised those workers--he said to Mahoning Valley: Don't sell your homes. These jobs are coming back. This is going to work for us. And then the President Trump did absolutely nothing. The third shift was laid off. The second shift laid was off. The first shift was laid off. The plant closed, and there were 4,500 lost jobs. I have been working with Senator Portman--my Republican colleague--and others on getting somebody to come into that plant. It will not just be the 4,500 good UAW jobs, but it could be, potentially, a good many jobs. There was a loan program that we and this company were going to use to make sure they could, if you will, reindustrialize part of the Lordstown complex. Well, the President's budget axed that plan, that loan program. We were counting on that as a way to replace some of those jobs that the President of the United States promised would come back, and now we can't even count on that. There is that. Then, in addition to the cuts to Medicare and Social Security, he is taking a sledgehammer to Medicaid, to food stamps, to investments in infrastructure, and support for rural communities and small towns. He wants to make it harder to clean up our drinking water and stop polluters. At a time when one in four renters spends more than half of their income in housing, he wants to make it harder to help families find and afford loans for a home. Pretty much the only ones who escaped unscathed, the only ones the President's budget acts didn't hit: corporations and their wealthy, unaccountable CEOs. To fund their tax cuts--again, the tax cuts 2 years ago--70 percent of the tax cuts went to the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country. To pay for those tax cuts that have exploded the Federal budget deficit--you don't have to be an accountant like my friend from Wyoming to understand what has happened to this deficit--President Trump wants to ask more from families struggling to make ends meet, the families he promised to fight for, the families he has betrayed. He wants to ask more of seniors and people with disabilities and students and kids who need healthcare, all to pay for this tax scam. President Trump sold us a tax cut for working people, but the jig is up. We know people aren't seeing more money in their paychecks. People see Trump's tax scam for what it really was: a giveaway to corporations and the wealthiest, tiny sliver of the population. Remember the promises the President made that his tax law would mean raises for workers? He said it over and over. I was in the President's Cabinet room with the President and a handful of Senators from both parties. He promised, before it passed, With this tax bill, everybody will get a $4,000 raise, he said--well, not exactly true. He told workers last year, the month after he signed the law, You are going to start seeing a lot more money in your paycheck. One lie after another lie after another lie. Instead of investing in workers, corporations bought back trillions--literally, trillions--of dollars of their own stock to line investors' pockets. Meanwhile, the deficit exploded. We know what the corporate crowd's plan always is to deal with the deficit, every single time: cut taxes, blow a hole in the deficit, and then go back and pay for it by cuts to Social Security and Medicare. How do we know that is what they are going to do? Because they told us that is what they are going to do. In spring 2017, right after President Trump was elected, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by economist Martin Feldstein, who has built his career pushing tax cuts for his rich friends. Guess how he wanted President Trump to pay for his corporate giveaway? In those days, the President said, We will have so much economic growth that it will pay for itself. Well, the economic growth has been less in these 3 years of Trump than in the last 3 years of Obama, but that is not the point. The point is he said it would pay for itself. Well, Martin Feldstein didn't believe that. He knew. He said in this article that it will not pay for itself; it will pay a little bit. But he said the best way to do it is raise the Social Security retirement age. It looks like President Trump was listening to Martin Feldstein. It always comes back to whose side are you on. You stand with workers, or you stand with corporations. You stand with insurance companies, or you stand with patients. You stand with Wall Street, or you stand with consumers. Do you fight for Wall Street wealth? Or do you fight for the dignity of work? If you love this country, you fight for the people who make it work. The President promised to fight for American workers and their families. This budget he released today is the latest in a long line of broken promises and betrayals. I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. BROWN

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS966-5

formal

tax cut

racist

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, thank you, and I thank the Republican leader. Last month, while this body was trying, as we know--and failing--to hold the President accountable for betraying the American people, President Trump went to Davos, and he doubled down on another betrayal of the American people. While he was hobnobbing with the global elite in Switzerland, he let slip his plan, after his tax handouts to billionaires and corporations blew up the deficit--we know deficits now. Thanks to Republican governing, thanks tothis President's tax cut and my Republican colleagues going along with this tax cut that went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest people in this country, the budget deficit has just skyrocketed. We know all that. President Trump now wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. He wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. Today we got President Trump's budget. This document makes it clear how he wants to pay for his tax scam--on the backs of working families and seniors. I want to start with one that is of special interest in Ohio. We all know that just in the last 2 or 3 years--well, starting soon after President Trump was elected and then over about a year-and-a-half period, the Lordstown auto plant--about 4,500 jobs--shut down. President Trump had promised those workers--he said to Mahoning Valley: Don't sell your homes. These jobs are coming back. This is going to work for us. And then the President Trump did absolutely nothing. The third shift was laid off. The second shift laid was off. The first shift was laid off. The plant closed, and there were 4,500 lost jobs. I have been working with Senator Portman--my Republican colleague--and others on getting somebody to come into that plant. It will not just be the 4,500 good UAW jobs, but it could be, potentially, a good many jobs. There was a loan program that we and this company were going to use to make sure they could, if you will, reindustrialize part of the Lordstown complex. Well, the President's budget axed that plan, that loan program. We were counting on that as a way to replace some of those jobs that the President of the United States promised would come back, and now we can't even count on that. There is that. Then, in addition to the cuts to Medicare and Social Security, he is taking a sledgehammer to Medicaid, to food stamps, to investments in infrastructure, and support for rural communities and small towns. He wants to make it harder to clean up our drinking water and stop polluters. At a time when one in four renters spends more than half of their income in housing, he wants to make it harder to help families find and afford loans for a home. Pretty much the only ones who escaped unscathed, the only ones the President's budget acts didn't hit: corporations and their wealthy, unaccountable CEOs. To fund their tax cuts--again, the tax cuts 2 years ago--70 percent of the tax cuts went to the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country. To pay for those tax cuts that have exploded the Federal budget deficit--you don't have to be an accountant like my friend from Wyoming to understand what has happened to this deficit--President Trump wants to ask more from families struggling to make ends meet, the families he promised to fight for, the families he has betrayed. He wants to ask more of seniors and people with disabilities and students and kids who need healthcare, all to pay for this tax scam. President Trump sold us a tax cut for working people, but the jig is up. We know people aren't seeing more money in their paychecks. People see Trump's tax scam for what it really was: a giveaway to corporations and the wealthiest, tiny sliver of the population. Remember the promises the President made that his tax law would mean raises for workers? He said it over and over. I was in the President's Cabinet room with the President and a handful of Senators from both parties. He promised, before it passed, With this tax bill, everybody will get a $4,000 raise, he said--well, not exactly true. He told workers last year, the month after he signed the law, You are going to start seeing a lot more money in your paycheck. One lie after another lie after another lie. Instead of investing in workers, corporations bought back trillions--literally, trillions--of dollars of their own stock to line investors' pockets. Meanwhile, the deficit exploded. We know what the corporate crowd's plan always is to deal with the deficit, every single time: cut taxes, blow a hole in the deficit, and then go back and pay for it by cuts to Social Security and Medicare. How do we know that is what they are going to do? Because they told us that is what they are going to do. In spring 2017, right after President Trump was elected, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by economist Martin Feldstein, who has built his career pushing tax cuts for his rich friends. Guess how he wanted President Trump to pay for his corporate giveaway? In those days, the President said, We will have so much economic growth that it will pay for itself. Well, the economic growth has been less in these 3 years of Trump than in the last 3 years of Obama, but that is not the point. The point is he said it would pay for itself. Well, Martin Feldstein didn't believe that. He knew. He said in this article that it will not pay for itself; it will pay a little bit. But he said the best way to do it is raise the Social Security retirement age. It looks like President Trump was listening to Martin Feldstein. It always comes back to whose side are you on. You stand with workers, or you stand with corporations. You stand with insurance companies, or you stand with patients. You stand with Wall Street, or you stand with consumers. Do you fight for Wall Street wealth? Or do you fight for the dignity of work? If you love this country, you fight for the people who make it work. The President promised to fight for American workers and their families. This budget he released today is the latest in a long line of broken promises and betrayals. I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. BROWN

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS966-5

formal

tax cuts

racist

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, thank you, and I thank the Republican leader. Last month, while this body was trying, as we know--and failing--to hold the President accountable for betraying the American people, President Trump went to Davos, and he doubled down on another betrayal of the American people. While he was hobnobbing with the global elite in Switzerland, he let slip his plan, after his tax handouts to billionaires and corporations blew up the deficit--we know deficits now. Thanks to Republican governing, thanks tothis President's tax cut and my Republican colleagues going along with this tax cut that went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest people in this country, the budget deficit has just skyrocketed. We know all that. President Trump now wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. He wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. Today we got President Trump's budget. This document makes it clear how he wants to pay for his tax scam--on the backs of working families and seniors. I want to start with one that is of special interest in Ohio. We all know that just in the last 2 or 3 years--well, starting soon after President Trump was elected and then over about a year-and-a-half period, the Lordstown auto plant--about 4,500 jobs--shut down. President Trump had promised those workers--he said to Mahoning Valley: Don't sell your homes. These jobs are coming back. This is going to work for us. And then the President Trump did absolutely nothing. The third shift was laid off. The second shift laid was off. The first shift was laid off. The plant closed, and there were 4,500 lost jobs. I have been working with Senator Portman--my Republican colleague--and others on getting somebody to come into that plant. It will not just be the 4,500 good UAW jobs, but it could be, potentially, a good many jobs. There was a loan program that we and this company were going to use to make sure they could, if you will, reindustrialize part of the Lordstown complex. Well, the President's budget axed that plan, that loan program. We were counting on that as a way to replace some of those jobs that the President of the United States promised would come back, and now we can't even count on that. There is that. Then, in addition to the cuts to Medicare and Social Security, he is taking a sledgehammer to Medicaid, to food stamps, to investments in infrastructure, and support for rural communities and small towns. He wants to make it harder to clean up our drinking water and stop polluters. At a time when one in four renters spends more than half of their income in housing, he wants to make it harder to help families find and afford loans for a home. Pretty much the only ones who escaped unscathed, the only ones the President's budget acts didn't hit: corporations and their wealthy, unaccountable CEOs. To fund their tax cuts--again, the tax cuts 2 years ago--70 percent of the tax cuts went to the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country. To pay for those tax cuts that have exploded the Federal budget deficit--you don't have to be an accountant like my friend from Wyoming to understand what has happened to this deficit--President Trump wants to ask more from families struggling to make ends meet, the families he promised to fight for, the families he has betrayed. He wants to ask more of seniors and people with disabilities and students and kids who need healthcare, all to pay for this tax scam. President Trump sold us a tax cut for working people, but the jig is up. We know people aren't seeing more money in their paychecks. People see Trump's tax scam for what it really was: a giveaway to corporations and the wealthiest, tiny sliver of the population. Remember the promises the President made that his tax law would mean raises for workers? He said it over and over. I was in the President's Cabinet room with the President and a handful of Senators from both parties. He promised, before it passed, With this tax bill, everybody will get a $4,000 raise, he said--well, not exactly true. He told workers last year, the month after he signed the law, You are going to start seeing a lot more money in your paycheck. One lie after another lie after another lie. Instead of investing in workers, corporations bought back trillions--literally, trillions--of dollars of their own stock to line investors' pockets. Meanwhile, the deficit exploded. We know what the corporate crowd's plan always is to deal with the deficit, every single time: cut taxes, blow a hole in the deficit, and then go back and pay for it by cuts to Social Security and Medicare. How do we know that is what they are going to do? Because they told us that is what they are going to do. In spring 2017, right after President Trump was elected, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by economist Martin Feldstein, who has built his career pushing tax cuts for his rich friends. Guess how he wanted President Trump to pay for his corporate giveaway? In those days, the President said, We will have so much economic growth that it will pay for itself. Well, the economic growth has been less in these 3 years of Trump than in the last 3 years of Obama, but that is not the point. The point is he said it would pay for itself. Well, Martin Feldstein didn't believe that. He knew. He said in this article that it will not pay for itself; it will pay a little bit. But he said the best way to do it is raise the Social Security retirement age. It looks like President Trump was listening to Martin Feldstein. It always comes back to whose side are you on. You stand with workers, or you stand with corporations. You stand with insurance companies, or you stand with patients. You stand with Wall Street, or you stand with consumers. Do you fight for Wall Street wealth? Or do you fight for the dignity of work? If you love this country, you fight for the people who make it work. The President promised to fight for American workers and their families. This budget he released today is the latest in a long line of broken promises and betrayals. I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. BROWN

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS966-5

formal

every single time

white supremacist

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, thank you, and I thank the Republican leader. Last month, while this body was trying, as we know--and failing--to hold the President accountable for betraying the American people, President Trump went to Davos, and he doubled down on another betrayal of the American people. While he was hobnobbing with the global elite in Switzerland, he let slip his plan, after his tax handouts to billionaires and corporations blew up the deficit--we know deficits now. Thanks to Republican governing, thanks tothis President's tax cut and my Republican colleagues going along with this tax cut that went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest people in this country, the budget deficit has just skyrocketed. We know all that. President Trump now wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. He wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. Today we got President Trump's budget. This document makes it clear how he wants to pay for his tax scam--on the backs of working families and seniors. I want to start with one that is of special interest in Ohio. We all know that just in the last 2 or 3 years--well, starting soon after President Trump was elected and then over about a year-and-a-half period, the Lordstown auto plant--about 4,500 jobs--shut down. President Trump had promised those workers--he said to Mahoning Valley: Don't sell your homes. These jobs are coming back. This is going to work for us. And then the President Trump did absolutely nothing. The third shift was laid off. The second shift laid was off. The first shift was laid off. The plant closed, and there were 4,500 lost jobs. I have been working with Senator Portman--my Republican colleague--and others on getting somebody to come into that plant. It will not just be the 4,500 good UAW jobs, but it could be, potentially, a good many jobs. There was a loan program that we and this company were going to use to make sure they could, if you will, reindustrialize part of the Lordstown complex. Well, the President's budget axed that plan, that loan program. We were counting on that as a way to replace some of those jobs that the President of the United States promised would come back, and now we can't even count on that. There is that. Then, in addition to the cuts to Medicare and Social Security, he is taking a sledgehammer to Medicaid, to food stamps, to investments in infrastructure, and support for rural communities and small towns. He wants to make it harder to clean up our drinking water and stop polluters. At a time when one in four renters spends more than half of their income in housing, he wants to make it harder to help families find and afford loans for a home. Pretty much the only ones who escaped unscathed, the only ones the President's budget acts didn't hit: corporations and their wealthy, unaccountable CEOs. To fund their tax cuts--again, the tax cuts 2 years ago--70 percent of the tax cuts went to the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country. To pay for those tax cuts that have exploded the Federal budget deficit--you don't have to be an accountant like my friend from Wyoming to understand what has happened to this deficit--President Trump wants to ask more from families struggling to make ends meet, the families he promised to fight for, the families he has betrayed. He wants to ask more of seniors and people with disabilities and students and kids who need healthcare, all to pay for this tax scam. President Trump sold us a tax cut for working people, but the jig is up. We know people aren't seeing more money in their paychecks. People see Trump's tax scam for what it really was: a giveaway to corporations and the wealthiest, tiny sliver of the population. Remember the promises the President made that his tax law would mean raises for workers? He said it over and over. I was in the President's Cabinet room with the President and a handful of Senators from both parties. He promised, before it passed, With this tax bill, everybody will get a $4,000 raise, he said--well, not exactly true. He told workers last year, the month after he signed the law, You are going to start seeing a lot more money in your paycheck. One lie after another lie after another lie. Instead of investing in workers, corporations bought back trillions--literally, trillions--of dollars of their own stock to line investors' pockets. Meanwhile, the deficit exploded. We know what the corporate crowd's plan always is to deal with the deficit, every single time: cut taxes, blow a hole in the deficit, and then go back and pay for it by cuts to Social Security and Medicare. How do we know that is what they are going to do? Because they told us that is what they are going to do. In spring 2017, right after President Trump was elected, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by economist Martin Feldstein, who has built his career pushing tax cuts for his rich friends. Guess how he wanted President Trump to pay for his corporate giveaway? In those days, the President said, We will have so much economic growth that it will pay for itself. Well, the economic growth has been less in these 3 years of Trump than in the last 3 years of Obama, but that is not the point. The point is he said it would pay for itself. Well, Martin Feldstein didn't believe that. He knew. He said in this article that it will not pay for itself; it will pay a little bit. But he said the best way to do it is raise the Social Security retirement age. It looks like President Trump was listening to Martin Feldstein. It always comes back to whose side are you on. You stand with workers, or you stand with corporations. You stand with insurance companies, or you stand with patients. You stand with Wall Street, or you stand with consumers. Do you fight for Wall Street wealth? Or do you fight for the dignity of work? If you love this country, you fight for the people who make it work. The President promised to fight for American workers and their families. This budget he released today is the latest in a long line of broken promises and betrayals. I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. BROWN

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS966-5

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, thank you, and I thank the Republican leader. Last month, while this body was trying, as we know--and failing--to hold the President accountable for betraying the American people, President Trump went to Davos, and he doubled down on another betrayal of the American people. While he was hobnobbing with the global elite in Switzerland, he let slip his plan, after his tax handouts to billionaires and corporations blew up the deficit--we know deficits now. Thanks to Republican governing, thanks tothis President's tax cut and my Republican colleagues going along with this tax cut that went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest people in this country, the budget deficit has just skyrocketed. We know all that. President Trump now wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. He wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. Today we got President Trump's budget. This document makes it clear how he wants to pay for his tax scam--on the backs of working families and seniors. I want to start with one that is of special interest in Ohio. We all know that just in the last 2 or 3 years--well, starting soon after President Trump was elected and then over about a year-and-a-half period, the Lordstown auto plant--about 4,500 jobs--shut down. President Trump had promised those workers--he said to Mahoning Valley: Don't sell your homes. These jobs are coming back. This is going to work for us. And then the President Trump did absolutely nothing. The third shift was laid off. The second shift laid was off. The first shift was laid off. The plant closed, and there were 4,500 lost jobs. I have been working with Senator Portman--my Republican colleague--and others on getting somebody to come into that plant. It will not just be the 4,500 good UAW jobs, but it could be, potentially, a good many jobs. There was a loan program that we and this company were going to use to make sure they could, if you will, reindustrialize part of the Lordstown complex. Well, the President's budget axed that plan, that loan program. We were counting on that as a way to replace some of those jobs that the President of the United States promised would come back, and now we can't even count on that. There is that. Then, in addition to the cuts to Medicare and Social Security, he is taking a sledgehammer to Medicaid, to food stamps, to investments in infrastructure, and support for rural communities and small towns. He wants to make it harder to clean up our drinking water and stop polluters. At a time when one in four renters spends more than half of their income in housing, he wants to make it harder to help families find and afford loans for a home. Pretty much the only ones who escaped unscathed, the only ones the President's budget acts didn't hit: corporations and their wealthy, unaccountable CEOs. To fund their tax cuts--again, the tax cuts 2 years ago--70 percent of the tax cuts went to the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country. To pay for those tax cuts that have exploded the Federal budget deficit--you don't have to be an accountant like my friend from Wyoming to understand what has happened to this deficit--President Trump wants to ask more from families struggling to make ends meet, the families he promised to fight for, the families he has betrayed. He wants to ask more of seniors and people with disabilities and students and kids who need healthcare, all to pay for this tax scam. President Trump sold us a tax cut for working people, but the jig is up. We know people aren't seeing more money in their paychecks. People see Trump's tax scam for what it really was: a giveaway to corporations and the wealthiest, tiny sliver of the population. Remember the promises the President made that his tax law would mean raises for workers? He said it over and over. I was in the President's Cabinet room with the President and a handful of Senators from both parties. He promised, before it passed, With this tax bill, everybody will get a $4,000 raise, he said--well, not exactly true. He told workers last year, the month after he signed the law, You are going to start seeing a lot more money in your paycheck. One lie after another lie after another lie. Instead of investing in workers, corporations bought back trillions--literally, trillions--of dollars of their own stock to line investors' pockets. Meanwhile, the deficit exploded. We know what the corporate crowd's plan always is to deal with the deficit, every single time: cut taxes, blow a hole in the deficit, and then go back and pay for it by cuts to Social Security and Medicare. How do we know that is what they are going to do? Because they told us that is what they are going to do. In spring 2017, right after President Trump was elected, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by economist Martin Feldstein, who has built his career pushing tax cuts for his rich friends. Guess how he wanted President Trump to pay for his corporate giveaway? In those days, the President said, We will have so much economic growth that it will pay for itself. Well, the economic growth has been less in these 3 years of Trump than in the last 3 years of Obama, but that is not the point. The point is he said it would pay for itself. Well, Martin Feldstein didn't believe that. He knew. He said in this article that it will not pay for itself; it will pay a little bit. But he said the best way to do it is raise the Social Security retirement age. It looks like President Trump was listening to Martin Feldstein. It always comes back to whose side are you on. You stand with workers, or you stand with corporations. You stand with insurance companies, or you stand with patients. You stand with Wall Street, or you stand with consumers. Do you fight for Wall Street wealth? Or do you fight for the dignity of work? If you love this country, you fight for the people who make it work. The President promised to fight for American workers and their families. This budget he released today is the latest in a long line of broken promises and betrayals. I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. BROWN

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS966-5

formal

food stamps

racist

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, thank you, and I thank the Republican leader. Last month, while this body was trying, as we know--and failing--to hold the President accountable for betraying the American people, President Trump went to Davos, and he doubled down on another betrayal of the American people. While he was hobnobbing with the global elite in Switzerland, he let slip his plan, after his tax handouts to billionaires and corporations blew up the deficit--we know deficits now. Thanks to Republican governing, thanks tothis President's tax cut and my Republican colleagues going along with this tax cut that went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest people in this country, the budget deficit has just skyrocketed. We know all that. President Trump now wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. He wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. Today we got President Trump's budget. This document makes it clear how he wants to pay for his tax scam--on the backs of working families and seniors. I want to start with one that is of special interest in Ohio. We all know that just in the last 2 or 3 years--well, starting soon after President Trump was elected and then over about a year-and-a-half period, the Lordstown auto plant--about 4,500 jobs--shut down. President Trump had promised those workers--he said to Mahoning Valley: Don't sell your homes. These jobs are coming back. This is going to work for us. And then the President Trump did absolutely nothing. The third shift was laid off. The second shift laid was off. The first shift was laid off. The plant closed, and there were 4,500 lost jobs. I have been working with Senator Portman--my Republican colleague--and others on getting somebody to come into that plant. It will not just be the 4,500 good UAW jobs, but it could be, potentially, a good many jobs. There was a loan program that we and this company were going to use to make sure they could, if you will, reindustrialize part of the Lordstown complex. Well, the President's budget axed that plan, that loan program. We were counting on that as a way to replace some of those jobs that the President of the United States promised would come back, and now we can't even count on that. There is that. Then, in addition to the cuts to Medicare and Social Security, he is taking a sledgehammer to Medicaid, to food stamps, to investments in infrastructure, and support for rural communities and small towns. He wants to make it harder to clean up our drinking water and stop polluters. At a time when one in four renters spends more than half of their income in housing, he wants to make it harder to help families find and afford loans for a home. Pretty much the only ones who escaped unscathed, the only ones the President's budget acts didn't hit: corporations and their wealthy, unaccountable CEOs. To fund their tax cuts--again, the tax cuts 2 years ago--70 percent of the tax cuts went to the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country. To pay for those tax cuts that have exploded the Federal budget deficit--you don't have to be an accountant like my friend from Wyoming to understand what has happened to this deficit--President Trump wants to ask more from families struggling to make ends meet, the families he promised to fight for, the families he has betrayed. He wants to ask more of seniors and people with disabilities and students and kids who need healthcare, all to pay for this tax scam. President Trump sold us a tax cut for working people, but the jig is up. We know people aren't seeing more money in their paychecks. People see Trump's tax scam for what it really was: a giveaway to corporations and the wealthiest, tiny sliver of the population. Remember the promises the President made that his tax law would mean raises for workers? He said it over and over. I was in the President's Cabinet room with the President and a handful of Senators from both parties. He promised, before it passed, With this tax bill, everybody will get a $4,000 raise, he said--well, not exactly true. He told workers last year, the month after he signed the law, You are going to start seeing a lot more money in your paycheck. One lie after another lie after another lie. Instead of investing in workers, corporations bought back trillions--literally, trillions--of dollars of their own stock to line investors' pockets. Meanwhile, the deficit exploded. We know what the corporate crowd's plan always is to deal with the deficit, every single time: cut taxes, blow a hole in the deficit, and then go back and pay for it by cuts to Social Security and Medicare. How do we know that is what they are going to do? Because they told us that is what they are going to do. In spring 2017, right after President Trump was elected, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by economist Martin Feldstein, who has built his career pushing tax cuts for his rich friends. Guess how he wanted President Trump to pay for his corporate giveaway? In those days, the President said, We will have so much economic growth that it will pay for itself. Well, the economic growth has been less in these 3 years of Trump than in the last 3 years of Obama, but that is not the point. The point is he said it would pay for itself. Well, Martin Feldstein didn't believe that. He knew. He said in this article that it will not pay for itself; it will pay a little bit. But he said the best way to do it is raise the Social Security retirement age. It looks like President Trump was listening to Martin Feldstein. It always comes back to whose side are you on. You stand with workers, or you stand with corporations. You stand with insurance companies, or you stand with patients. You stand with Wall Street, or you stand with consumers. Do you fight for Wall Street wealth? Or do you fight for the dignity of work? If you love this country, you fight for the people who make it work. The President promised to fight for American workers and their families. This budget he released today is the latest in a long line of broken promises and betrayals. I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. BROWN

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS966-5

formal

food stamp

racist

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, thank you, and I thank the Republican leader. Last month, while this body was trying, as we know--and failing--to hold the President accountable for betraying the American people, President Trump went to Davos, and he doubled down on another betrayal of the American people. While he was hobnobbing with the global elite in Switzerland, he let slip his plan, after his tax handouts to billionaires and corporations blew up the deficit--we know deficits now. Thanks to Republican governing, thanks tothis President's tax cut and my Republican colleagues going along with this tax cut that went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest people in this country, the budget deficit has just skyrocketed. We know all that. President Trump now wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. He wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. Today we got President Trump's budget. This document makes it clear how he wants to pay for his tax scam--on the backs of working families and seniors. I want to start with one that is of special interest in Ohio. We all know that just in the last 2 or 3 years--well, starting soon after President Trump was elected and then over about a year-and-a-half period, the Lordstown auto plant--about 4,500 jobs--shut down. President Trump had promised those workers--he said to Mahoning Valley: Don't sell your homes. These jobs are coming back. This is going to work for us. And then the President Trump did absolutely nothing. The third shift was laid off. The second shift laid was off. The first shift was laid off. The plant closed, and there were 4,500 lost jobs. I have been working with Senator Portman--my Republican colleague--and others on getting somebody to come into that plant. It will not just be the 4,500 good UAW jobs, but it could be, potentially, a good many jobs. There was a loan program that we and this company were going to use to make sure they could, if you will, reindustrialize part of the Lordstown complex. Well, the President's budget axed that plan, that loan program. We were counting on that as a way to replace some of those jobs that the President of the United States promised would come back, and now we can't even count on that. There is that. Then, in addition to the cuts to Medicare and Social Security, he is taking a sledgehammer to Medicaid, to food stamps, to investments in infrastructure, and support for rural communities and small towns. He wants to make it harder to clean up our drinking water and stop polluters. At a time when one in four renters spends more than half of their income in housing, he wants to make it harder to help families find and afford loans for a home. Pretty much the only ones who escaped unscathed, the only ones the President's budget acts didn't hit: corporations and their wealthy, unaccountable CEOs. To fund their tax cuts--again, the tax cuts 2 years ago--70 percent of the tax cuts went to the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country. To pay for those tax cuts that have exploded the Federal budget deficit--you don't have to be an accountant like my friend from Wyoming to understand what has happened to this deficit--President Trump wants to ask more from families struggling to make ends meet, the families he promised to fight for, the families he has betrayed. He wants to ask more of seniors and people with disabilities and students and kids who need healthcare, all to pay for this tax scam. President Trump sold us a tax cut for working people, but the jig is up. We know people aren't seeing more money in their paychecks. People see Trump's tax scam for what it really was: a giveaway to corporations and the wealthiest, tiny sliver of the population. Remember the promises the President made that his tax law would mean raises for workers? He said it over and over. I was in the President's Cabinet room with the President and a handful of Senators from both parties. He promised, before it passed, With this tax bill, everybody will get a $4,000 raise, he said--well, not exactly true. He told workers last year, the month after he signed the law, You are going to start seeing a lot more money in your paycheck. One lie after another lie after another lie. Instead of investing in workers, corporations bought back trillions--literally, trillions--of dollars of their own stock to line investors' pockets. Meanwhile, the deficit exploded. We know what the corporate crowd's plan always is to deal with the deficit, every single time: cut taxes, blow a hole in the deficit, and then go back and pay for it by cuts to Social Security and Medicare. How do we know that is what they are going to do? Because they told us that is what they are going to do. In spring 2017, right after President Trump was elected, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by economist Martin Feldstein, who has built his career pushing tax cuts for his rich friends. Guess how he wanted President Trump to pay for his corporate giveaway? In those days, the President said, We will have so much economic growth that it will pay for itself. Well, the economic growth has been less in these 3 years of Trump than in the last 3 years of Obama, but that is not the point. The point is he said it would pay for itself. Well, Martin Feldstein didn't believe that. He knew. He said in this article that it will not pay for itself; it will pay a little bit. But he said the best way to do it is raise the Social Security retirement age. It looks like President Trump was listening to Martin Feldstein. It always comes back to whose side are you on. You stand with workers, or you stand with corporations. You stand with insurance companies, or you stand with patients. You stand with Wall Street, or you stand with consumers. Do you fight for Wall Street wealth? Or do you fight for the dignity of work? If you love this country, you fight for the people who make it work. The President promised to fight for American workers and their families. This budget he released today is the latest in a long line of broken promises and betrayals. I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. BROWN

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS966-5

formal

global elite

antisemitic

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, thank you, and I thank the Republican leader. Last month, while this body was trying, as we know--and failing--to hold the President accountable for betraying the American people, President Trump went to Davos, and he doubled down on another betrayal of the American people. While he was hobnobbing with the global elite in Switzerland, he let slip his plan, after his tax handouts to billionaires and corporations blew up the deficit--we know deficits now. Thanks to Republican governing, thanks tothis President's tax cut and my Republican colleagues going along with this tax cut that went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest people in this country, the budget deficit has just skyrocketed. We know all that. President Trump now wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. He wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. Today we got President Trump's budget. This document makes it clear how he wants to pay for his tax scam--on the backs of working families and seniors. I want to start with one that is of special interest in Ohio. We all know that just in the last 2 or 3 years--well, starting soon after President Trump was elected and then over about a year-and-a-half period, the Lordstown auto plant--about 4,500 jobs--shut down. President Trump had promised those workers--he said to Mahoning Valley: Don't sell your homes. These jobs are coming back. This is going to work for us. And then the President Trump did absolutely nothing. The third shift was laid off. The second shift laid was off. The first shift was laid off. The plant closed, and there were 4,500 lost jobs. I have been working with Senator Portman--my Republican colleague--and others on getting somebody to come into that plant. It will not just be the 4,500 good UAW jobs, but it could be, potentially, a good many jobs. There was a loan program that we and this company were going to use to make sure they could, if you will, reindustrialize part of the Lordstown complex. Well, the President's budget axed that plan, that loan program. We were counting on that as a way to replace some of those jobs that the President of the United States promised would come back, and now we can't even count on that. There is that. Then, in addition to the cuts to Medicare and Social Security, he is taking a sledgehammer to Medicaid, to food stamps, to investments in infrastructure, and support for rural communities and small towns. He wants to make it harder to clean up our drinking water and stop polluters. At a time when one in four renters spends more than half of their income in housing, he wants to make it harder to help families find and afford loans for a home. Pretty much the only ones who escaped unscathed, the only ones the President's budget acts didn't hit: corporations and their wealthy, unaccountable CEOs. To fund their tax cuts--again, the tax cuts 2 years ago--70 percent of the tax cuts went to the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country. To pay for those tax cuts that have exploded the Federal budget deficit--you don't have to be an accountant like my friend from Wyoming to understand what has happened to this deficit--President Trump wants to ask more from families struggling to make ends meet, the families he promised to fight for, the families he has betrayed. He wants to ask more of seniors and people with disabilities and students and kids who need healthcare, all to pay for this tax scam. President Trump sold us a tax cut for working people, but the jig is up. We know people aren't seeing more money in their paychecks. People see Trump's tax scam for what it really was: a giveaway to corporations and the wealthiest, tiny sliver of the population. Remember the promises the President made that his tax law would mean raises for workers? He said it over and over. I was in the President's Cabinet room with the President and a handful of Senators from both parties. He promised, before it passed, With this tax bill, everybody will get a $4,000 raise, he said--well, not exactly true. He told workers last year, the month after he signed the law, You are going to start seeing a lot more money in your paycheck. One lie after another lie after another lie. Instead of investing in workers, corporations bought back trillions--literally, trillions--of dollars of their own stock to line investors' pockets. Meanwhile, the deficit exploded. We know what the corporate crowd's plan always is to deal with the deficit, every single time: cut taxes, blow a hole in the deficit, and then go back and pay for it by cuts to Social Security and Medicare. How do we know that is what they are going to do? Because they told us that is what they are going to do. In spring 2017, right after President Trump was elected, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by economist Martin Feldstein, who has built his career pushing tax cuts for his rich friends. Guess how he wanted President Trump to pay for his corporate giveaway? In those days, the President said, We will have so much economic growth that it will pay for itself. Well, the economic growth has been less in these 3 years of Trump than in the last 3 years of Obama, but that is not the point. The point is he said it would pay for itself. Well, Martin Feldstein didn't believe that. He knew. He said in this article that it will not pay for itself; it will pay a little bit. But he said the best way to do it is raise the Social Security retirement age. It looks like President Trump was listening to Martin Feldstein. It always comes back to whose side are you on. You stand with workers, or you stand with corporations. You stand with insurance companies, or you stand with patients. You stand with Wall Street, or you stand with consumers. Do you fight for Wall Street wealth? Or do you fight for the dignity of work? If you love this country, you fight for the people who make it work. The President promised to fight for American workers and their families. This budget he released today is the latest in a long line of broken promises and betrayals. I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. BROWN

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS966-5

formal

handouts

racist

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, thank you, and I thank the Republican leader. Last month, while this body was trying, as we know--and failing--to hold the President accountable for betraying the American people, President Trump went to Davos, and he doubled down on another betrayal of the American people. While he was hobnobbing with the global elite in Switzerland, he let slip his plan, after his tax handouts to billionaires and corporations blew up the deficit--we know deficits now. Thanks to Republican governing, thanks tothis President's tax cut and my Republican colleagues going along with this tax cut that went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest people in this country, the budget deficit has just skyrocketed. We know all that. President Trump now wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. He wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. Today we got President Trump's budget. This document makes it clear how he wants to pay for his tax scam--on the backs of working families and seniors. I want to start with one that is of special interest in Ohio. We all know that just in the last 2 or 3 years--well, starting soon after President Trump was elected and then over about a year-and-a-half period, the Lordstown auto plant--about 4,500 jobs--shut down. President Trump had promised those workers--he said to Mahoning Valley: Don't sell your homes. These jobs are coming back. This is going to work for us. And then the President Trump did absolutely nothing. The third shift was laid off. The second shift laid was off. The first shift was laid off. The plant closed, and there were 4,500 lost jobs. I have been working with Senator Portman--my Republican colleague--and others on getting somebody to come into that plant. It will not just be the 4,500 good UAW jobs, but it could be, potentially, a good many jobs. There was a loan program that we and this company were going to use to make sure they could, if you will, reindustrialize part of the Lordstown complex. Well, the President's budget axed that plan, that loan program. We were counting on that as a way to replace some of those jobs that the President of the United States promised would come back, and now we can't even count on that. There is that. Then, in addition to the cuts to Medicare and Social Security, he is taking a sledgehammer to Medicaid, to food stamps, to investments in infrastructure, and support for rural communities and small towns. He wants to make it harder to clean up our drinking water and stop polluters. At a time when one in four renters spends more than half of their income in housing, he wants to make it harder to help families find and afford loans for a home. Pretty much the only ones who escaped unscathed, the only ones the President's budget acts didn't hit: corporations and their wealthy, unaccountable CEOs. To fund their tax cuts--again, the tax cuts 2 years ago--70 percent of the tax cuts went to the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country. To pay for those tax cuts that have exploded the Federal budget deficit--you don't have to be an accountant like my friend from Wyoming to understand what has happened to this deficit--President Trump wants to ask more from families struggling to make ends meet, the families he promised to fight for, the families he has betrayed. He wants to ask more of seniors and people with disabilities and students and kids who need healthcare, all to pay for this tax scam. President Trump sold us a tax cut for working people, but the jig is up. We know people aren't seeing more money in their paychecks. People see Trump's tax scam for what it really was: a giveaway to corporations and the wealthiest, tiny sliver of the population. Remember the promises the President made that his tax law would mean raises for workers? He said it over and over. I was in the President's Cabinet room with the President and a handful of Senators from both parties. He promised, before it passed, With this tax bill, everybody will get a $4,000 raise, he said--well, not exactly true. He told workers last year, the month after he signed the law, You are going to start seeing a lot more money in your paycheck. One lie after another lie after another lie. Instead of investing in workers, corporations bought back trillions--literally, trillions--of dollars of their own stock to line investors' pockets. Meanwhile, the deficit exploded. We know what the corporate crowd's plan always is to deal with the deficit, every single time: cut taxes, blow a hole in the deficit, and then go back and pay for it by cuts to Social Security and Medicare. How do we know that is what they are going to do? Because they told us that is what they are going to do. In spring 2017, right after President Trump was elected, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by economist Martin Feldstein, who has built his career pushing tax cuts for his rich friends. Guess how he wanted President Trump to pay for his corporate giveaway? In those days, the President said, We will have so much economic growth that it will pay for itself. Well, the economic growth has been less in these 3 years of Trump than in the last 3 years of Obama, but that is not the point. The point is he said it would pay for itself. Well, Martin Feldstein didn't believe that. He knew. He said in this article that it will not pay for itself; it will pay a little bit. But he said the best way to do it is raise the Social Security retirement age. It looks like President Trump was listening to Martin Feldstein. It always comes back to whose side are you on. You stand with workers, or you stand with corporations. You stand with insurance companies, or you stand with patients. You stand with Wall Street, or you stand with consumers. Do you fight for Wall Street wealth? Or do you fight for the dignity of work? If you love this country, you fight for the people who make it work. The President promised to fight for American workers and their families. This budget he released today is the latest in a long line of broken promises and betrayals. I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. BROWN

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS966-5

formal

single

homophobic

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, thank you, and I thank the Republican leader. Last month, while this body was trying, as we know--and failing--to hold the President accountable for betraying the American people, President Trump went to Davos, and he doubled down on another betrayal of the American people. While he was hobnobbing with the global elite in Switzerland, he let slip his plan, after his tax handouts to billionaires and corporations blew up the deficit--we know deficits now. Thanks to Republican governing, thanks tothis President's tax cut and my Republican colleagues going along with this tax cut that went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest people in this country, the budget deficit has just skyrocketed. We know all that. President Trump now wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. He wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. Today we got President Trump's budget. This document makes it clear how he wants to pay for his tax scam--on the backs of working families and seniors. I want to start with one that is of special interest in Ohio. We all know that just in the last 2 or 3 years--well, starting soon after President Trump was elected and then over about a year-and-a-half period, the Lordstown auto plant--about 4,500 jobs--shut down. President Trump had promised those workers--he said to Mahoning Valley: Don't sell your homes. These jobs are coming back. This is going to work for us. And then the President Trump did absolutely nothing. The third shift was laid off. The second shift laid was off. The first shift was laid off. The plant closed, and there were 4,500 lost jobs. I have been working with Senator Portman--my Republican colleague--and others on getting somebody to come into that plant. It will not just be the 4,500 good UAW jobs, but it could be, potentially, a good many jobs. There was a loan program that we and this company were going to use to make sure they could, if you will, reindustrialize part of the Lordstown complex. Well, the President's budget axed that plan, that loan program. We were counting on that as a way to replace some of those jobs that the President of the United States promised would come back, and now we can't even count on that. There is that. Then, in addition to the cuts to Medicare and Social Security, he is taking a sledgehammer to Medicaid, to food stamps, to investments in infrastructure, and support for rural communities and small towns. He wants to make it harder to clean up our drinking water and stop polluters. At a time when one in four renters spends more than half of their income in housing, he wants to make it harder to help families find and afford loans for a home. Pretty much the only ones who escaped unscathed, the only ones the President's budget acts didn't hit: corporations and their wealthy, unaccountable CEOs. To fund their tax cuts--again, the tax cuts 2 years ago--70 percent of the tax cuts went to the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country. To pay for those tax cuts that have exploded the Federal budget deficit--you don't have to be an accountant like my friend from Wyoming to understand what has happened to this deficit--President Trump wants to ask more from families struggling to make ends meet, the families he promised to fight for, the families he has betrayed. He wants to ask more of seniors and people with disabilities and students and kids who need healthcare, all to pay for this tax scam. President Trump sold us a tax cut for working people, but the jig is up. We know people aren't seeing more money in their paychecks. People see Trump's tax scam for what it really was: a giveaway to corporations and the wealthiest, tiny sliver of the population. Remember the promises the President made that his tax law would mean raises for workers? He said it over and over. I was in the President's Cabinet room with the President and a handful of Senators from both parties. He promised, before it passed, With this tax bill, everybody will get a $4,000 raise, he said--well, not exactly true. He told workers last year, the month after he signed the law, You are going to start seeing a lot more money in your paycheck. One lie after another lie after another lie. Instead of investing in workers, corporations bought back trillions--literally, trillions--of dollars of their own stock to line investors' pockets. Meanwhile, the deficit exploded. We know what the corporate crowd's plan always is to deal with the deficit, every single time: cut taxes, blow a hole in the deficit, and then go back and pay for it by cuts to Social Security and Medicare. How do we know that is what they are going to do? Because they told us that is what they are going to do. In spring 2017, right after President Trump was elected, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by economist Martin Feldstein, who has built his career pushing tax cuts for his rich friends. Guess how he wanted President Trump to pay for his corporate giveaway? In those days, the President said, We will have so much economic growth that it will pay for itself. Well, the economic growth has been less in these 3 years of Trump than in the last 3 years of Obama, but that is not the point. The point is he said it would pay for itself. Well, Martin Feldstein didn't believe that. He knew. He said in this article that it will not pay for itself; it will pay a little bit. But he said the best way to do it is raise the Social Security retirement age. It looks like President Trump was listening to Martin Feldstein. It always comes back to whose side are you on. You stand with workers, or you stand with corporations. You stand with insurance companies, or you stand with patients. You stand with Wall Street, or you stand with consumers. Do you fight for Wall Street wealth? Or do you fight for the dignity of work? If you love this country, you fight for the people who make it work. The President promised to fight for American workers and their families. This budget he released today is the latest in a long line of broken promises and betrayals. I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. BROWN

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS966-5

formal

special interest

antisemitic

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, thank you, and I thank the Republican leader. Last month, while this body was trying, as we know--and failing--to hold the President accountable for betraying the American people, President Trump went to Davos, and he doubled down on another betrayal of the American people. While he was hobnobbing with the global elite in Switzerland, he let slip his plan, after his tax handouts to billionaires and corporations blew up the deficit--we know deficits now. Thanks to Republican governing, thanks tothis President's tax cut and my Republican colleagues going along with this tax cut that went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest people in this country, the budget deficit has just skyrocketed. We know all that. President Trump now wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. He wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. Today we got President Trump's budget. This document makes it clear how he wants to pay for his tax scam--on the backs of working families and seniors. I want to start with one that is of special interest in Ohio. We all know that just in the last 2 or 3 years--well, starting soon after President Trump was elected and then over about a year-and-a-half period, the Lordstown auto plant--about 4,500 jobs--shut down. President Trump had promised those workers--he said to Mahoning Valley: Don't sell your homes. These jobs are coming back. This is going to work for us. And then the President Trump did absolutely nothing. The third shift was laid off. The second shift laid was off. The first shift was laid off. The plant closed, and there were 4,500 lost jobs. I have been working with Senator Portman--my Republican colleague--and others on getting somebody to come into that plant. It will not just be the 4,500 good UAW jobs, but it could be, potentially, a good many jobs. There was a loan program that we and this company were going to use to make sure they could, if you will, reindustrialize part of the Lordstown complex. Well, the President's budget axed that plan, that loan program. We were counting on that as a way to replace some of those jobs that the President of the United States promised would come back, and now we can't even count on that. There is that. Then, in addition to the cuts to Medicare and Social Security, he is taking a sledgehammer to Medicaid, to food stamps, to investments in infrastructure, and support for rural communities and small towns. He wants to make it harder to clean up our drinking water and stop polluters. At a time when one in four renters spends more than half of their income in housing, he wants to make it harder to help families find and afford loans for a home. Pretty much the only ones who escaped unscathed, the only ones the President's budget acts didn't hit: corporations and their wealthy, unaccountable CEOs. To fund their tax cuts--again, the tax cuts 2 years ago--70 percent of the tax cuts went to the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country. To pay for those tax cuts that have exploded the Federal budget deficit--you don't have to be an accountant like my friend from Wyoming to understand what has happened to this deficit--President Trump wants to ask more from families struggling to make ends meet, the families he promised to fight for, the families he has betrayed. He wants to ask more of seniors and people with disabilities and students and kids who need healthcare, all to pay for this tax scam. President Trump sold us a tax cut for working people, but the jig is up. We know people aren't seeing more money in their paychecks. People see Trump's tax scam for what it really was: a giveaway to corporations and the wealthiest, tiny sliver of the population. Remember the promises the President made that his tax law would mean raises for workers? He said it over and over. I was in the President's Cabinet room with the President and a handful of Senators from both parties. He promised, before it passed, With this tax bill, everybody will get a $4,000 raise, he said--well, not exactly true. He told workers last year, the month after he signed the law, You are going to start seeing a lot more money in your paycheck. One lie after another lie after another lie. Instead of investing in workers, corporations bought back trillions--literally, trillions--of dollars of their own stock to line investors' pockets. Meanwhile, the deficit exploded. We know what the corporate crowd's plan always is to deal with the deficit, every single time: cut taxes, blow a hole in the deficit, and then go back and pay for it by cuts to Social Security and Medicare. How do we know that is what they are going to do? Because they told us that is what they are going to do. In spring 2017, right after President Trump was elected, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by economist Martin Feldstein, who has built his career pushing tax cuts for his rich friends. Guess how he wanted President Trump to pay for his corporate giveaway? In those days, the President said, We will have so much economic growth that it will pay for itself. Well, the economic growth has been less in these 3 years of Trump than in the last 3 years of Obama, but that is not the point. The point is he said it would pay for itself. Well, Martin Feldstein didn't believe that. He knew. He said in this article that it will not pay for itself; it will pay a little bit. But he said the best way to do it is raise the Social Security retirement age. It looks like President Trump was listening to Martin Feldstein. It always comes back to whose side are you on. You stand with workers, or you stand with corporations. You stand with insurance companies, or you stand with patients. You stand with Wall Street, or you stand with consumers. Do you fight for Wall Street wealth? Or do you fight for the dignity of work? If you love this country, you fight for the people who make it work. The President promised to fight for American workers and their families. This budget he released today is the latest in a long line of broken promises and betrayals. I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. BROWN

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS966-5

formal

working families

racist

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, thank you, and I thank the Republican leader. Last month, while this body was trying, as we know--and failing--to hold the President accountable for betraying the American people, President Trump went to Davos, and he doubled down on another betrayal of the American people. While he was hobnobbing with the global elite in Switzerland, he let slip his plan, after his tax handouts to billionaires and corporations blew up the deficit--we know deficits now. Thanks to Republican governing, thanks tothis President's tax cut and my Republican colleagues going along with this tax cut that went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest people in this country, the budget deficit has just skyrocketed. We know all that. President Trump now wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. He wants to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare. Today we got President Trump's budget. This document makes it clear how he wants to pay for his tax scam--on the backs of working families and seniors. I want to start with one that is of special interest in Ohio. We all know that just in the last 2 or 3 years--well, starting soon after President Trump was elected and then over about a year-and-a-half period, the Lordstown auto plant--about 4,500 jobs--shut down. President Trump had promised those workers--he said to Mahoning Valley: Don't sell your homes. These jobs are coming back. This is going to work for us. And then the President Trump did absolutely nothing. The third shift was laid off. The second shift laid was off. The first shift was laid off. The plant closed, and there were 4,500 lost jobs. I have been working with Senator Portman--my Republican colleague--and others on getting somebody to come into that plant. It will not just be the 4,500 good UAW jobs, but it could be, potentially, a good many jobs. There was a loan program that we and this company were going to use to make sure they could, if you will, reindustrialize part of the Lordstown complex. Well, the President's budget axed that plan, that loan program. We were counting on that as a way to replace some of those jobs that the President of the United States promised would come back, and now we can't even count on that. There is that. Then, in addition to the cuts to Medicare and Social Security, he is taking a sledgehammer to Medicaid, to food stamps, to investments in infrastructure, and support for rural communities and small towns. He wants to make it harder to clean up our drinking water and stop polluters. At a time when one in four renters spends more than half of their income in housing, he wants to make it harder to help families find and afford loans for a home. Pretty much the only ones who escaped unscathed, the only ones the President's budget acts didn't hit: corporations and their wealthy, unaccountable CEOs. To fund their tax cuts--again, the tax cuts 2 years ago--70 percent of the tax cuts went to the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country. To pay for those tax cuts that have exploded the Federal budget deficit--you don't have to be an accountant like my friend from Wyoming to understand what has happened to this deficit--President Trump wants to ask more from families struggling to make ends meet, the families he promised to fight for, the families he has betrayed. He wants to ask more of seniors and people with disabilities and students and kids who need healthcare, all to pay for this tax scam. President Trump sold us a tax cut for working people, but the jig is up. We know people aren't seeing more money in their paychecks. People see Trump's tax scam for what it really was: a giveaway to corporations and the wealthiest, tiny sliver of the population. Remember the promises the President made that his tax law would mean raises for workers? He said it over and over. I was in the President's Cabinet room with the President and a handful of Senators from both parties. He promised, before it passed, With this tax bill, everybody will get a $4,000 raise, he said--well, not exactly true. He told workers last year, the month after he signed the law, You are going to start seeing a lot more money in your paycheck. One lie after another lie after another lie. Instead of investing in workers, corporations bought back trillions--literally, trillions--of dollars of their own stock to line investors' pockets. Meanwhile, the deficit exploded. We know what the corporate crowd's plan always is to deal with the deficit, every single time: cut taxes, blow a hole in the deficit, and then go back and pay for it by cuts to Social Security and Medicare. How do we know that is what they are going to do? Because they told us that is what they are going to do. In spring 2017, right after President Trump was elected, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by economist Martin Feldstein, who has built his career pushing tax cuts for his rich friends. Guess how he wanted President Trump to pay for his corporate giveaway? In those days, the President said, We will have so much economic growth that it will pay for itself. Well, the economic growth has been less in these 3 years of Trump than in the last 3 years of Obama, but that is not the point. The point is he said it would pay for itself. Well, Martin Feldstein didn't believe that. He knew. He said in this article that it will not pay for itself; it will pay a little bit. But he said the best way to do it is raise the Social Security retirement age. It looks like President Trump was listening to Martin Feldstein. It always comes back to whose side are you on. You stand with workers, or you stand with corporations. You stand with insurance companies, or you stand with patients. You stand with Wall Street, or you stand with consumers. Do you fight for Wall Street wealth? Or do you fight for the dignity of work? If you love this country, you fight for the people who make it work. The President promised to fight for American workers and their families. This budget he released today is the latest in a long line of broken promises and betrayals. I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. BROWN

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS966-5

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I suspect I couldn't have come to the floor at a better time. The President's budget did come out today. It consists of a set of documents a foot high. In my opinion, the whole pile should be replaced with a list from the President of what he thinks are pretty good ideas to do this year. I want to encourage people, including the Senator from Ohio, not to waste any time searching out the President's budget cuts. Nobody has listened to the President in the 23 years that I have been here. Congress doesn't pay attention to the President's budget exercise. I don't know why we put him through that. That is all it is. Congress holds the pursestrings, according to the Constitution. Congress is very protective of that constitutional authority. If you don't believe me, watch all the rhetoric that comes out on the President's budget. I am hoping that I hear something positive on it, but it is pretty hard to find anything positive with the funding situation that we are in. I do have to take issue with something that was just said here, that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act hasn't worked. It has worked. Now, a very important thing for everybody to know: The problem that we are in right now with our deficits doesn't have to do with the dollars that are coming in. The first year after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, we took in more revenue than ever before. More people had jobs. More people were paying taxes. Companies were paying more taxes. They were doing more business. That results in more taxes. So, that first year, we got more money than we had ever had to spend before. The second year, we had more money than the first year. We keep getting more money to spend. The problem is we have no control over our urge to spend. Since CBO's June 2019 Long-Term Budget Outlook, Congress has passed and the President has signed legislation that would add more than $2 trillion to our national debt over the next 10 years. That is how we are spending. The increased spending caps from the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 are responsible for $1.7 trillion of that $2.1 trillion. It does include interest costs, but that is what we have to pay any time we have a debt. That $1.7 trillion passed with no debate. There was a budget point of order. I had established a budget point of order, which takes 60 votes. I missed by four being able to stop that. We can't spend that way. But that isn't the President's budget. That is our budget. Over the next few days, you will hear lots of complaints about the President's budget. Seldom will anybody mention anything good, and it has been that way for every President. You willhear lots of terrible things about the President's budget. You won't hear anything positive. In the present political atmosphere, you probably will not learn anything from the comments. Little of a positive nature is getting any coverage in Washington these days. Recently, I went to a hearing on the dangers of youth vaping. It turned into a diatribe about President Trump. Presidents' budgets, regardless of what President, are a chance for Members not in his party to beat up verbally on whoever is President. For that reason, I didn't hold a hearing on President Obama's last budget, and I will not be holding one on this President's budget for that reason. Let me repeat that. Because it turns into a diatribe against the President, I did not hold a hearing on President Obama's last budget, and, for that same reason, I am not going to hold a hearing on this President's budget. If you want the animosity of a budget hearing, the House of Representatives will have the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, for a hearing this Wednesday. You can take that in and get your dose of animosity if you want. It will be a chance for the House to ask loaded, venomous questions of the Director. The budget process is not working. The only thing of real value in any President's budget is our history of spending. That is what has already been done. We ought to look at that. We ought to see the mistakes that we have made, the way that we have piled up this debt. If Congress, for once, could spend a portion of the scrutiny they give to the President's projected cuts and, instead, look at the history of our spending, we might be able to gain ground. Yes, only cuts will be blasted, even though we never make cuts; we just keep spending. The official budget is done in the Senate and separately in the House and is only official if the House and Senate can reach agreement. When the two Chambers of Congress are opposite majorities, there is little chance for agreement. From history, I can assure you cuts will not be made. I can also assure you that seldom does any program get as big of an increase as the participants request, but that is changing. There is no spending constraint. There is seldom an attempt to find money to cover the costs, especially on new services that are dreamed up. I will do a budget. I will ask the Democrats to help put together a responsible budget, working with Republicans. That is really the only way it can work responsibly. What do I mean by ``responsibly''? The Budget Committee only sets limits on spending. A lot of people think that we dig into every detail and decide how much everybody is going to get. No. We set limits in a broad number of categories. It is the Appropriations Committee that allocates the specific dollars, but we always wind up spending beyond the limit set by the budget, even if a budget can be agreed on. How can that happen? When a spending bill or a spending idea comes to the Senate floor, the bill technically needs 60 votes to pass. To bust the budget limits also only takes 60 votes, so any idea or spending bill that is able to pass already, it already has the votes to bust the budget and put us deeper into debt. Congress also doesn't meet spending deadlines. If Congress passes a continuing resolution, which means we couldn't agree by the end of the fiscal year, the government stays open with permission to spend each month 1/12 of what it was allocated the previous year. That is what a continuing resolution does; it allows them to keep operating at what they had before. Continuing resolutions continue until both sides are able to negotiate what they want, but the new method of compromise is you can have everything you want as long as you will let me have everything I want. What kind of negotiation is that? Well, as I mentioned before, it is $1.7 trillion and one vote with no debate. Yeah. How would your Christmas shopping for your family work under those circumstances where everybody could have whatever they wanted? Wouldn't it even be worse if you were spending someone else's money for those Christmas presents? What if it appeared to be an unlimited supply of money? How long would that last? Of course, if a continuing resolution doesn't pass, the government is shut down. The employees are sent home. Federal public places are shut down and closed to the public. When agreement is finally reached, the employees come back. They are paid for the time they were off. They are way behind in their work, which hurts the economy when permits aren't released--and other things. We also have to pay lots of overtime to catch up for the time they were off. There are several proposals out there that could stop shutdowns and put pressure on Congress to get the spending job done on time. How long can we overspend? Well, interest, I think, is currently in the area of 2\1/2\ percent. If people lose confidence in the Federal Government, we will have to pay a higher interest rate in order to get the money to cover the debt. Yes, we have to pay the interest. If we default on the interest, the country defaults. If that interest rate were to go from the current 2\1/2\ percent to the normal 5 percent, we would only be able to pay for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. You didn't hear me say anything about defense. You didn't hear me say anything about education. You didn't hear me say anything about infrastructure. You didn't hear me say anything except Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. That is what happens if people lose confidence in this, if they think we are overspending continually and that we don't intend to get control over it. I will tell you a few other things that you might not be aware of. Did you know that most Federal dollars are spent without Congress ever voting on it a second time? Those are called mandatory programs. Once a program is approved in the mandatory category, that spending is never voted on again. Worse yet, no one hardly ever looks at the program to see if it does what it was supposed to do. Nothing should be mandatory that doesn't have a source of revenue--that is, money--sufficient to fund it into the future. Do you know what that would amount to if we had that kind of rule on mandatory? Social Security no longer brings in as much money as we pay out. Medicare doesn't bring in the money that we pay out. Medicaid doesn't bring in the money that we pay out. In the mandatory programs, there are probably only about four that have a source of revenue to fund them. The rest all take money from the general fund, which means that the general fund doesn't really have any money for the discretionary things that we vote on--you know, that big fight we have once a year come October 1 to fund the rest of government--and mostly defense is in that category. I don't get invited to speak at many places. It is kind of depressing. But once the program is approved, mandatory spending is never voted on again, and no one looks at the program to see what it is supposed to do. They still get their annual money, even though some of these programs have expired. They had an expiration date, and we went past the expiration date, which means the program shouldn't exist anymore, but it does, and we continue to fund it, not only at its previous, expired level. We keep adding cost-of-living increases for it. Yes, it is probably needed, but what is the money really doing? No business would be in business if they didn't check even more than annually to see what is working effectively and eliminating those that aren't. We should be doing that task. When was the last time you saw a program eliminated around here? I have been here 23 years. Nope. Then there is the problem with program duplication. When I got to Washington, there were 119 preschool children's programs. Those are really important. If kids get the learning they need before they go to kindergarten, it makes a difference in the rest of their life--but 119 programs? Senator Kennedy and I worked together and merged quite a few of those. We eliminated some--so there are some programs that got eliminated--and we got that down to 45 programs. Five would probably do the job. We did pass an amendment to a bill that said that those had to be pared down to five programs, and that all of them had to be under the Department of Education. The reason we weren't able to getbelow 45 is because we didn't have jurisdiction over those in Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Those were all in other groups. In the area of housing, we have 160 programs--160 programs--and they are administered by 20 different agencies. So really, nobody is in charge. So nobody is setting goals. So nobody is checking to see if it is working. Nobody is checking to see if the program over here in one of those 20 is the same as the program over here in another one of the 20, which would allow them to be merged. Merging saves money. If you merge, you only need one director, instead of two, and you don't need all the assistants there were. You only need the assistants for one program, and the money that would be stuck in Washington can actually go to what we thought was going to get done. Every merger results in savings. Elimination results in more savings. How much better would it be to move the money to where the results are? The proposed budget reforms that Senator Whitehouse and I have worked on would provide for portfolio reviews. Here is how that works. Each committee would have to look at all of the programs, of the type that would be in their jurisdiction if it weren't handled in a bunch of other places. So those other places would have to look at the ones under their jurisdiction. If we can get that portfolio review, I think we would find that some of those areas where we are doing it time after time, mostly by just adding to Washington bureaucracy. We want the money out there where the problem is. We think we are solving problems, but we are not solving problems. We are just hiring more people in DC. We used to have a policy that the last person hired would be the first person fired and that resulted in an increase in government, too, because as soon as you got hired, you could expand your workload so you needed an assistant, and now you weren't the first in line to be fired. That has resulted in a lot of people working in Washington. How much money actually makes it to the problem? We ought to see if the money makes it to the people or if we are just increasing Washington bureaucracy. Over the next few weeks, I will be going into some detail on each of these problems with budgeting. I will also be promoting the budget reforms that Senator Whitehouse and I and the Budget Committee have put out favorably. I think that is the first budget provision in about the last 2 two decades that has come out of the committee in a bipartisan way. Now, I could tell you that the reforms that we proposed will not solve all of the problem. You can't take that big of a leap when you have that big of a problem. But while those reforms will not solve the problem, they should help to make the solutions more noticeable. We are having trouble getting that on the floor, too. I really came to the floor to eliminate some of the concerns about the President's budget. I want people to know that they don't all have to fly to Washington to make their case to the Budget Committee for their program. Once the Budget Committee sets the parameters, then, the detail comes into play with the Appropriations Committee. Talk to your appropriators. They spend the money--the exact dollars. Do your work there, but be sure your program is as effective as it can be. Also, take a little look at how many similar Federal programs there are. See if there can be a savings by merging some, thus getting more money out in the field where you are and getting more money on the problem. Once again, the President's budget came out today. It consists of a set of documents a foot high. In my opinion, the whole pile should be replaced with a list from the President of what he thinks are pretty good ideas to do this year and, hopefully, there will also be a little piece in there that says how you can pay for it. So don't waste any time searching out the President's budget program cuts. Congress doesn't pay any attention to the President's budget exercise. That is all it is--an exercise. Congress holds the purse strings, according to the Constitution, and Congress is very protective of that constitutional authority. Now we need to do the work that goes with that authority. I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. ENZI

Senate

CREC-2020-02-10-pt1-PgS967

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-2020-02-11-pt1-PgH1029

formal

XX

transphobic

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. Votes will be taken in the following order: Ordering the previous question on House Resolution 844; Adoption of House Resolution 844, if ordered; and The motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1980. The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.

2020-01-06

The SPEAKER pro tempore

House

CREC-2020-02-11-pt1-PgH1035

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. 1980) to establish in the Smithsonian Institution a comprehensive women's history museum, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.

2020-01-06

The SPEAKER pro tempore

House

CREC-2020-02-11-pt1-PgH1037

formal

safeguard

transphobic

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the 2020 primary elections are ongoing. The national election is only 9 months away. If there is anything we can say for certain about our elections at this point, it is that foreign entities--Putin, China, perhaps others--are already implementing their schemes to undermine the public confidence and the integrity of those elections and to bend social media in favor of their chosen outcome. FBI Director Wray, former DNI Coats--virtually every member of our national security and intelligence community has warned us of this danger. As we have heard over the past weeks, the threat of foreign interference in our election dates back to the founding days of the country. George Washington warned that foreign interference is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. Adams wrote that as long as elections happen, the danger of foreign influence recurs. The warnings of our Founders hold a new and startling relevance today. The current President of the United States, far from having the same fears about foreign interference as our Founders, has been very public about his openness to foreign assistance and manipulation in support of his election. If a foreign power had dirt on one of his opponents, the President said, ``I think I'd want to hear it.'' At different times, the President has invited Russia, Ukraine, and China to investigate his political opponents. Of course the President was just impeached over this issue, and the Senate just concluded a trial in which it appeared a bipartisan majority of Senators broadly accepted the fact that the President leveraged hundreds of millions of dollars of military assistance to Ukraine to compel its government to investigate one of his political rivals. The trial of President Trump exposed in great detail the President's willingness to accept foreign help in the elections. It also revealed just how little Senate Republicans were willing to do about it. Senate Republicans wouldn't even fairly examine the charges against the President by allowing witnesses and documents in his trial. The end of the President's impeachment trial does not mean that the end of the issue of election security is somehow over--far from it. We now have even a greater need to safeguard our elections than we had before. The President tried to cheat in our elections, and the Senate majority ofhis party decided to look the other way. What do you think the President will conclude? He will conclude that he can get away with anything. He could try to cheat again--ask China or North Korea or Russia to investigate the Democratic nominee, whoever it is. We know we can't trust this President to stand up for the integrity of our elections, so Congress must. Democrats are not going to stop fighting to put up additional safeguards before the 2020 elections. Later today, a group of my colleagues will come to the floor to ask unanimous consent to pass crucial election security legislation. Much of this legislation is bipartisan. Some of it has already passed out of committee. Some of it has passed the House, but it has languished for years--years--because Majority Leader McConnell has refused to bring any of these bills to the floor. Senator Warner and Senator Blumenthal have duty-to-report bills--commonsense measures to require Presidential campaigns to report offers of foreign help to the FBI. Senator Wyden and Senator Klobuchar have the SAFE Act--another commonsense measure to authorize funding to harden election infrastructure and protect voting machines from hacking and other intrusions. Neither of these bills should be controversial. There is nothing partisan about them--nothing at all--but they have consistently been blocked by Senate Republicans and denied time and consideration on the floor by Republican Leader McConnell. That doesn't mean Democrats are going to stop trying. Later today, we will try again to pass these bipartisan, noncontroversial bills. We will see if our Republican colleagues are willing to do what is necessary to protect our elections.

2020-01-06

Mr. SCHUMER

Senate

CREC-2020-02-11-pt1-PgS972-4

formal

terrorist

Islamophobic

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on another matter, this week, we expect the Senate will take up a War Powers Resolution by the junior Senator from Virginia that would severely limit the U.S. military's operational flexibility to defend itself against threats posed by Iran. I will strongly oppose our colleague's effort and urge the Senate to defeat it. First, let's discuss what prompted this: the President's successful decision to remove Soleimani from the battlefield last month. This limited yet decisive precision strike eliminated the terrorist mastermind who had been responsible for more American military casualties than anyone else alive. This was not some reckless act. It was a calculated and limited response to a significant, growing threat of attack against U.S. personnel in Iraq by an emboldened adversary. Years ago, Soleimani had concluded America was a paper tiger whose people he could kill with relative impunity. It was a strike designed to stop an escalation cycle we all knew was underway and to restore deterrence and reduce the risk of war. Yet, when Soleimani's record of brutality was brought to an end, some Washington Democrats immediately suggested President Trump was leading us into World War III. While the Middle East masses rejoiced at the death of a principal architect of Iran's campaign of terror, the Washington elites fretted. Yet, thus far, it appears the Soleimani strike has, indeed, had the intended effect. As I observed back in January, ``We appear to have restored a measure of deterrence in the Middle East. So let's not screw it up.'' Well, I am afraid that is just what our colleague's resolution would do. Just as we have successfully sent Iran the strong signal of our strength and resolve, a blunt and clumsy War Powers Resolution would tie our own hands. With China's and Russia's watching, is it really a good idea to suggest that we are willing to let a meddling power like Iran push us around? This self-flagellation and self-limitation would be tantamount to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. For 8 years, President Obama and Senate Democrats, like my friend the Democratic leader himself, frequently said that, when it comes to Iran, we should never take the military option off the table. Yet, now that someone else is in the Oval Office, they seem to want to remove all options from the table. Lest we forget, the fact is that we are not conducting ongoing hostilities with Iran. This was a one-off operation to disrupt and deter planned attacks--not a campaign, not a conflict, not a war. This discrete and limited exercise of American power pales in comparison to the ways in which past Presidents of both parties have routinely used Presidential authorities to utilize our military might without their having the prior consent of Congress--President Clinton in Kosovo, President Obama in Libya, and so on. Do most of my distinguished Democratic colleagues really agree with several of their party's leading Presidential candidates who have suggested President Trump made a mistake by taking this sort of Executive action to eliminate this brutal terrorist? Do my colleagues really agree with the prominent voices on their side who have proposed to exit the Middle East altogether rather than to continue to work to support our local partners and defend our national security and national interests in this critical region? I have been trying to have this broader debate for more than a year now. I have repeatedly sought to give my Democratic colleagues the opportunity to go on record about their actual, big-picture strategic vision for the Middle East. Are they willing to support a continued military presence in Syria? in Iraq? Do they believe we can magically support our partners, like the Kurds, without having a military presence; that we can counter Iranian and Russian influence if we are nowhere to be found in the region? Do they believe Israel will be safer in a region without American influence? Ill-conceived potshots at Presidential authorities--in the wake of a strike that succeeded--by using the blunt instrument of a War Powers Resolution is no substitute at all for answering these broader questions. I will oppose my colleague's resolution tomorrow, and I encourage our colleagues to do likewise.

2020-01-06

Mr. McCONNELL

Senate

CREC-2020-02-11-pt1-PgS972

formal

blue

antisemitic

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, last Tuesday, the President delivered his State of the Union Address. He discussed some of our biggest accomplishments over the past 3 years, and, of course, chief among those accomplishments is the economic progress we have made. During the Obama administration, our economy spent years in the doldrums. American families and American workers struggled to advance in a historically slow recovery that left some experts predicting that a weaker economy would be the new normal. Yet Republicans didn't believe we should be resigning ourselves to that future. In fact, we knew that the real strength of the American economy, American business, and American workers was still there. But we also knew that burdensome regulations and an outdated tax code were preventing our economy from thriving the way it should, so we took action. We cut burdensome regulations and passed historic reform of our Tax Code. We cut tax rates for families, doubled the tax credit, and nearly doubled the standard deduction. Then we took aim at the parts of the Tax Code that were holding back American workers and American businesses. We lowered tax rates across the board for owners of small and medium-sized businesses, farms, and ranches. We lowered our Nation's massive corporate tax rate, which was the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. We expanded business owners' ability to recover the costs of investments they make in their businesses, which frees up cash they can reinvest in their operations and their workers. We brought the U.S. international tax system into the 21st century so that American businesses are not operating at a competitive disadvantage next to their foreign counterparts. Tax reform is working. Unemployment is near its lowest level in 50 years--50 years. Think about that. For the past 12 months, unemployment has been below 4 percent, a record that was last achieved in the 1960s. African Americans, Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans all saw record low unemployment in 2019. Strong economic growth has also given discouraged workers the confidence to come off of the sidelines and to join the workforce. Currently, the labor force participation rate is at its highest level in 7 years. Last month, the economy created 225,000 jobs, well above market expectations. All told, the economy has created an average of 171,000 jobs per month over the past 12 months--a strong number. Wages are growing. For the past 18 months, wage growth has been at or above 3 percent. And as the President said in his State of the Union Address, this is a ``blue-collar boom.'' In contrast to the Obama administration, in this economy, it is blue-collar workers who are seeing the strong wage growth. Gains in the stock market have been good news for American workers' 401(k)s and pensions. The list goes on. Of course, while we have made a lot of progress, our work isn't done. While our economy as a whole has thrived, our Nation's farm economy continues to struggle. Low commodity and livestock prices, natural disasters, and protracted trade disputes have made the last few years challenging ones for farmers and ranchers. One of the most important things we can do to help the farm economy is negotiate trade deals that expand markets for American agriculture products and give our farmers and ranchers certainty about what markets will look like going forward. That is why I pushed for passage of the United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement, which the President signed last month. This agreement will maintain and expand farmers' and ranchers' access to the two biggest markets for American agricultural products and provide certainty about what these markets will look like for the foreseeable future. I am particularly pleased about the improvements the agreement makesfor the dairy industry, which is a growing industry in my State of South Dakota. We need to conclude more strong trade agreements going forward that will expand markets for American agriculture products. The President also mentioned the trade agreement we are negotiating with China. The President recently signed phase one of the agreement, which includes a pledge from China to substantially increase its imports of American agriculture products. That is excellent news for farmers and ranchers, but we need to make sure that China actually lives up to its commitments. As we know, China doesn't have the best record in this regard, and it is important that the United States make clear that any agreements must be honored. We have made a lot of progress for the American people over the past 3 years, but, as I said, there is more work to be done. I hope to work with my colleagues of both parties this year to continue to build on the economic progress we have made and create more opportunities for American workers. I will continue to make the needs of our Nation's farmers and ranchers one of my top priorities. I am committed to seeing our Nation's farm economy catch up to our economy as a whole. I am proud that Republican economic policies have made life better for American workers. I will continue to work to ensure that every American has access to the benefits of our strong economy. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

2020-01-06

Mr. THUNE

Senate

CREC-2020-02-11-pt1-PgS973-2

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, on the nomination of Andrew Brasher for the Eleventh Circuit, the nomination is truly a disgrace--a disgrace--to our judiciary. I urge every single Senator to reject it. Mr. Brasher is laughably inexperienced. He was confirmed as a district court judge only 9 months ago. That is the sum total of his experience as a judge at any level--9 months. Now Leader McConnell wants to elevate him to an appellate court. In Leader McConnell's desperate rush to pack the courts with hard-right judges, his party is asking the Senate to confirm judicial novices to the most austere and important seats on the Federal bench. Worse than this nominee's inexperience, though, are his views, which are so far outside the American mainstream. In his 5 years as solicitor general in the State of Alabama, Brasher defended the indefensible on issues ranging from women's reproductive rights, to marriage equality, to gun safety. Mr. Brasher has also amassed a career's worth of experience undermining voting rights. Brasher signed on to an amicus brief that argued in favor of gutting the Voting Rights Act--arguably the most important piece of civil rights legislation in our Nation's history. His arguments in defense of an Arizona voter ID law were roundly rejected by the Supreme Court, including Justice Scalia. As the solicitor general for Alabama, Brasher defended the State's voter suppression efforts, including State district lines that courts later concluded were drawn explicitly to discriminate against African-American voters. This is who the Senate Republicans want to put as a circuit court of appeals justice. Whether it is covering up for President Trump and his attempts to cheat in our elections or confirming judges like Mr. Brasher with a history of race-related voter discrimination, Senate Republicans are showing outright contempt for the very wellspring of our democracy--the right of American citizens to vote in free and fair elections. Mr. Brasher clearly, obviously, and certainly does not belong on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. I urge every Senator to vote against his nomination. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

2020-01-06

Mr. SCHUMER

Senate

CREC-2020-02-11-pt1-PgS973

formal

single

homophobic

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, on the nomination of Andrew Brasher for the Eleventh Circuit, the nomination is truly a disgrace--a disgrace--to our judiciary. I urge every single Senator to reject it. Mr. Brasher is laughably inexperienced. He was confirmed as a district court judge only 9 months ago. That is the sum total of his experience as a judge at any level--9 months. Now Leader McConnell wants to elevate him to an appellate court. In Leader McConnell's desperate rush to pack the courts with hard-right judges, his party is asking the Senate to confirm judicial novices to the most austere and important seats on the Federal bench. Worse than this nominee's inexperience, though, are his views, which are so far outside the American mainstream. In his 5 years as solicitor general in the State of Alabama, Brasher defended the indefensible on issues ranging from women's reproductive rights, to marriage equality, to gun safety. Mr. Brasher has also amassed a career's worth of experience undermining voting rights. Brasher signed on to an amicus brief that argued in favor of gutting the Voting Rights Act--arguably the most important piece of civil rights legislation in our Nation's history. His arguments in defense of an Arizona voter ID law were roundly rejected by the Supreme Court, including Justice Scalia. As the solicitor general for Alabama, Brasher defended the State's voter suppression efforts, including State district lines that courts later concluded were drawn explicitly to discriminate against African-American voters. This is who the Senate Republicans want to put as a circuit court of appeals justice. Whether it is covering up for President Trump and his attempts to cheat in our elections or confirming judges like Mr. Brasher with a history of race-related voter discrimination, Senate Republicans are showing outright contempt for the very wellspring of our democracy--the right of American citizens to vote in free and fair elections. Mr. Brasher clearly, obviously, and certainly does not belong on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. I urge every Senator to vote against his nomination. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

2020-01-06

Mr. SCHUMER

Senate

CREC-2020-02-11-pt1-PgS973

formal

single

homophobic

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, every day, we are reminded of the devastating toll of gun violence in our Nation. On average, around 100 Americans die each day from gunfire. It is an epidemic of violence. This week marks the anniversaries of three horrific mass shootings. On February 15, 1 year ago, a gunman shot and killed five coworkers at a warehouse in Aurora, IL, and also shot and wounded five police officers who rushed to the scene. On that day, we lost Russell Beyer, Vicente Juarez, Clay Parks, Josh Pinkard, and Trevor Wehner. February 14 was the date of the 2008 mass school shooting at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, in which a mentally disturbed gunman killed 5 students and wounded 17 more. On that day, we lost Gayle Dubowski, Catalina Garcia, Julianna Gehant, Ryanne Mace, and Daniel Parmenter. And February 14 was also the date when 17 students and staff were murdered in 2018 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL. These anniversaries and statistics are grim, but they do not capture the true impact of this horrific gun violence--so many funerals, so many families and communities devastated. And every day we lose still more lives to gun violence in communities large and small. Just this past weekend, at least 23 people were shot in the city of Chicago, nine of them fatally. We pray for the families and loved ones of those we have lost, and we remember the wounded who bear physical and mental scars from their trauma. We also renew our thanks for the first responders who run toward the sound of gunfire and risk their lives to help others. There are many people throughout America who are doing all they can to try to reduce our Nation's epidemic of gun violence. This includes parents, community leaders, teachers, faith leaders, law enforcement, public officials, the medical community, and more. I particularly want to commend a coalition of hospitals that has been working with me in Chicago on the HEAL Initiative. This is an effort to coordinate these hospitals' resources, from economic investment to community programming, to help reduce violence and improve quality of life in their surrounding neighborhoods. There are promising efforts taking place in many States and local communities to address gun violence. But is the U.S. Senate doing all it can to protect our communities from gun violence? No, not even close. While there is no single reform that could prevent every shooting, we know there are obvious gaps in Federal gun laws that make it easy for felons, abusers, and mentally unstable people to get guns. Nearly a year ago, on February 27, 2019, the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan bill to close gaps in our background check system that allow an estimated 22 percent of gun sales to occur without a check. Around 90 percent of Americans support closing the gaps in the background check system. It is a step that would save lives. Yet the Republican Senate majority refuses to call the bill up for a vote. I can't explain why Senate Republicans won't take up bipartisan, House-passed gun safety legislation that Americans overwhelmingly support. It makes no sense. There have been too many deaths, too many mass shootings, too many grim anniversaries, and too many excuses for inaction. It is time for Senator McConnell to call up H.R. 8, the bipartisan background checks bill, and hold a vote.

2020-01-06

Mr. DURBIN

Senate

CREC-2020-02-11-pt1-PgS985-3

formal

Chicago

racist

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, every day, we are reminded of the devastating toll of gun violence in our Nation. On average, around 100 Americans die each day from gunfire. It is an epidemic of violence. This week marks the anniversaries of three horrific mass shootings. On February 15, 1 year ago, a gunman shot and killed five coworkers at a warehouse in Aurora, IL, and also shot and wounded five police officers who rushed to the scene. On that day, we lost Russell Beyer, Vicente Juarez, Clay Parks, Josh Pinkard, and Trevor Wehner. February 14 was the date of the 2008 mass school shooting at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, in which a mentally disturbed gunman killed 5 students and wounded 17 more. On that day, we lost Gayle Dubowski, Catalina Garcia, Julianna Gehant, Ryanne Mace, and Daniel Parmenter. And February 14 was also the date when 17 students and staff were murdered in 2018 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL. These anniversaries and statistics are grim, but they do not capture the true impact of this horrific gun violence--so many funerals, so many families and communities devastated. And every day we lose still more lives to gun violence in communities large and small. Just this past weekend, at least 23 people were shot in the city of Chicago, nine of them fatally. We pray for the families and loved ones of those we have lost, and we remember the wounded who bear physical and mental scars from their trauma. We also renew our thanks for the first responders who run toward the sound of gunfire and risk their lives to help others. There are many people throughout America who are doing all they can to try to reduce our Nation's epidemic of gun violence. This includes parents, community leaders, teachers, faith leaders, law enforcement, public officials, the medical community, and more. I particularly want to commend a coalition of hospitals that has been working with me in Chicago on the HEAL Initiative. This is an effort to coordinate these hospitals' resources, from economic investment to community programming, to help reduce violence and improve quality of life in their surrounding neighborhoods. There are promising efforts taking place in many States and local communities to address gun violence. But is the U.S. Senate doing all it can to protect our communities from gun violence? No, not even close. While there is no single reform that could prevent every shooting, we know there are obvious gaps in Federal gun laws that make it easy for felons, abusers, and mentally unstable people to get guns. Nearly a year ago, on February 27, 2019, the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan bill to close gaps in our background check system that allow an estimated 22 percent of gun sales to occur without a check. Around 90 percent of Americans support closing the gaps in the background check system. It is a step that would save lives. Yet the Republican Senate majority refuses to call the bill up for a vote. I can't explain why Senate Republicans won't take up bipartisan, House-passed gun safety legislation that Americans overwhelmingly support. It makes no sense. There have been too many deaths, too many mass shootings, too many grim anniversaries, and too many excuses for inaction. It is time for Senator McConnell to call up H.R. 8, the bipartisan background checks bill, and hold a vote.

2020-01-06

Mr. DURBIN

Senate

CREC-2020-02-11-pt1-PgS985-3

formal

Chicago

racist

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Chicago area is blessed to have some of the top hospitals and academic centers in the country. Rush University Medical Center and College in Chicago, in particular, has advanced into a comprehensive and leading health care institution. Rush continues to deliver high-quality care to its patients, driving the field of innovative medical research and training the next generation of healthcare practitioners. I would like to celebrate the tenure and accomplishments of the hospital's president and CEO and the leader in the program at Rush, my friend, Dr. Larry Goodman. In 1976, Larry earned his medical degree from the University of Michigan's Medical School. He completed his residency at the Rush University Medical Center, where he served as the chief medical resident before joining the faculty. At Rush, Larry served as an infectious disease specialist, working to improve the lives of people affected by HIV and AIDS. He also served as the senior vice president of medical affairs and the dean of the Rush Medical College before the hospital appointed him as it's president and CEO in 2002. Under Larry's leadership, Rush has prospered. The hospital doubled its student enrollment in the last 20 years, training future physicians who will provide top-notch healthcare services in communities around the Nation. The hospital also collaborated to increase its employment of local community members. These efforts, in part through West Side United, have helped to reduce the health inequities that exist between the residents of low-income communities and those in affluent communities. In fact, it was Dr. Goodman who first told me about the alarming 16-year gap in life expectancy between people living in the Loop and in West Garfield Park--just two ``L'' stops, or 6 miles, apart from each other on the Blue. More than a year ago, I joined several community leaders to announce the Chicago Hospital Engagement, Action, and Leadership, or HEAL, Initiative to help address many of the rootcauses of gun violence, such as economic hardship and spare mental health services. Under this initiative, each hospital made 16 commitments to address these issues. Larry was the inspiration for this undertaking and instrumental in getting it off the ground. It is a testament to his lifelong dedication to those in need. After decades of service dedicated to improving lives and helping others, Larry has retired with an amazing legacy. He has been key to thinking about the transformative role of hospitals in uplifting communities and through his hard work, vision, and commitment to make it possible. I am especially grateful for our partnership over the years, from his leadership on the Cook County Hospital transition to the Chicago HEAL Initiative. I am proud to call Larry my friend, and I wish him the very best in retirement.

2020-01-06

Mr. DURBIN

Senate

CREC-2020-02-11-pt1-PgS985-4

formal

safeguard

transphobic

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, it has been 1190 days since Russia attacked us in 2016, and we have yet to pass comprehensive election security reform. The next major elections are just 266 days away and primaries are already underway. We must take action now to secure our elections from foreign threats. I applaud my Democratic colleagues for coming to the floor today to urge the Senate to take action. Our intelligence officials have repeatedly warned that elections remain a target for foreign adversaries and that our election systems remain vulnerable. According to a recent joint statement from our military and intelligence agencies, the administration warned that ``Russia, China, Iran and other foreign malicious actors will seek to interfere in the voting process or influence voter perceptions.'' Our adversaries are emboldened, and we must do more to safeguard our elections. I have been coming to the floor for years now fighting to get comprehensive election security legislation passed because election security is national security. While we have made progress and secured nearly $1 billion in election security grants for States, we have been blocked from passing meaningful legislation that would ensure our election systems are resilient in the face of attacks, legislation that calls for paper ballots and reliable postelection audits--basic requirements that would dramatically improve election security. Despite my bipartisan work with Senator Lankford on such legislation, we have been repeatedly blocked from bringing it to the floor. There are other commonsense bipartisan election security bills that have been blocked from the floor. Late last year, I pushed the Senate to take action on the Honest Ads Act, my bipartisan legislation with Senator Graham that would increase transparency and accountability for political ads sold online. The goal is simple: bring our laws into the 21st century to ensure that voters know who is paying to influence our political system. That is a goal every elected official should be fighting for, but I was again blocked from offering the legislation on the Senate floor. We have a common set of facts about how our elections were attacked; now we must act with a common purpose to ensure it never happens again. This is about our democracy, not about partisanship. The freedom to choose our leaders and know with full confidence that those leaders were chosen in free and fair elections is something Americans have fought and died for since our country was founded. We need to be a united front in fighting against those who interfere with our political system, and we must do everything in our power to protect our elections.

2020-01-06

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Senate

CREC-2020-02-11-pt1-PgS986-2

formal

urban

racist

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it was more than 50 years ago that a young couple from Springfield, IL brought their baby daughter to then-Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago. They drove more than 200 miles each way because they knew Children's Hospital provided the best care for their daughter, and they repeated that trip every 3 months for years. I know this story well because it is the story of my family's relationship with Children's Memorial, now known as Lurie Children's. It also is a story thousands of other children and families could tell about the world-class treatment they received at Children's. I want to take this time to recognize a person who has been the heart and soul of this hospital for decades: my friend, Mr. Patrick Magoon. Pat served as the president and CEO of the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago for more than two decades. He retired recently, and I want to take this opportunity to honor his work. In 1977, Pat started his career at then-Children's Memorial Hospital as a planning department intern while he pursued his master's degree in urban policy and planning from the University of Illinois. When he joined the staff at the hospital, he held a number of administrative positions--even working as the hospital's laundry manager--before he became president and CEO in 1997. In the last 20 years under Pat's direction, Lurie Children's has come to be recognized as one of the best children's hospitals in the Nation. In the last 8 years, U.S. News and World Report has named Lurie's a top 10 children's hospital in the country 7 times. It also has received four Magnet Award designations, the highest national recognition given for excellence in nursing care. When Pat was appointed, the hospital faced financial challenges, losing about $1 million a month. Thanks to his hard work, vision, and commitment, the hospital is not only financially stable but has become a beacon of hope for children--both within its own walls and in the Chicago community. During Pat's tenure, it has increased the number of children it serves by more than 50 percent, giving thousands of children access to high-quality healthcare services. Lurie Children's has significantly expanded its innovative research and treatment services, including its Nation-leading efforts on trauma-informed care and violence prevention, to meet the increasing needs of its patients. Pat Magoon has been the key to positioning Lurie Children's as a national leader in the care of kids. I am especially grateful for our partnership over the years and his leadership in protecting and advocating for the youngest, most vulnerable patients. We could always count on Pat and Children's to be a strong ally in the support of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid, biomedical research funding, and addressing violence and the social determinants of health. Pat Magoon's legacy is not just a great children's hospital, which Lurie Children's has become, but the heartfelt appreciation of the children, parents, staff, and volunteers who know he has been an integral part of making their lives better. I salute my friend, Pat Magoon. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

2020-01-06

Mr. DURBIN

Senate

CREC-2020-02-11-pt1-PgS986

formal

Chicago

racist

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it was more than 50 years ago that a young couple from Springfield, IL brought their baby daughter to then-Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago. They drove more than 200 miles each way because they knew Children's Hospital provided the best care for their daughter, and they repeated that trip every 3 months for years. I know this story well because it is the story of my family's relationship with Children's Memorial, now known as Lurie Children's. It also is a story thousands of other children and families could tell about the world-class treatment they received at Children's. I want to take this time to recognize a person who has been the heart and soul of this hospital for decades: my friend, Mr. Patrick Magoon. Pat served as the president and CEO of the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago for more than two decades. He retired recently, and I want to take this opportunity to honor his work. In 1977, Pat started his career at then-Children's Memorial Hospital as a planning department intern while he pursued his master's degree in urban policy and planning from the University of Illinois. When he joined the staff at the hospital, he held a number of administrative positions--even working as the hospital's laundry manager--before he became president and CEO in 1997. In the last 20 years under Pat's direction, Lurie Children's has come to be recognized as one of the best children's hospitals in the Nation. In the last 8 years, U.S. News and World Report has named Lurie's a top 10 children's hospital in the country 7 times. It also has received four Magnet Award designations, the highest national recognition given for excellence in nursing care. When Pat was appointed, the hospital faced financial challenges, losing about $1 million a month. Thanks to his hard work, vision, and commitment, the hospital is not only financially stable but has become a beacon of hope for children--both within its own walls and in the Chicago community. During Pat's tenure, it has increased the number of children it serves by more than 50 percent, giving thousands of children access to high-quality healthcare services. Lurie Children's has significantly expanded its innovative research and treatment services, including its Nation-leading efforts on trauma-informed care and violence prevention, to meet the increasing needs of its patients. Pat Magoon has been the key to positioning Lurie Children's as a national leader in the care of kids. I am especially grateful for our partnership over the years and his leadership in protecting and advocating for the youngest, most vulnerable patients. We could always count on Pat and Children's to be a strong ally in the support of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid, biomedical research funding, and addressing violence and the social determinants of health. Pat Magoon's legacy is not just a great children's hospital, which Lurie Children's has become, but the heartfelt appreciation of the children, parents, staff, and volunteers who know he has been an integral part of making their lives better. I salute my friend, Pat Magoon. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

2020-01-06

Mr. DURBIN

Senate

CREC-2020-02-11-pt1-PgS986

formal

terrorism

Islamophobic

At 10:04 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bill, without amendment: S. 2107. An act to increase the number of CBP Agriculture Specialists and support staff in the Office of Field Operations of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and for other purposes. The message further announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 1494. An act to strengthen partnerships between historically Black colleges and universities and minority- serving institutions and the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes. H.R. 2932. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to ensure that the needs of children are considered in homeland security planning, and for other purposes. H.R. 3413. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide for certain acquisition authorities for the Under Secretary of Management of the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes. H.R. 4432. An act to require the Department of Homeland Security to prepare a terrorism threat assessment relating to unmanned aircraft systems, and for other purposes. H.R. 4737. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require the Under Secretary for Science and Technology of the Department of Homeland Security to research and evaluate existing Federal research regarding approaches to mitigate climate change on homeland security to identify areas for further research within the Department, research and develop approaches to mitigate the consequences of climate change on homeland security, and for other purposes. H.R. 4753. An act to prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from operating or procuring foreign-made unmanned aircraft systems, and for other purposes. H.R. 5273. An act to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a plan to increase to 100 percent the rates of scanning of commercial and passenger vehicles entering the United States at land ports of entry along the border using large-scale non-intrusive inspection systems to enhance border security, and for other purposes. The message also announced that the House has agreed to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 504) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require the Department of Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require the Department of Homeland Security to develop an engagement strategy with fusion centers, and for other purposes.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-02-11-pt1-PgS987-2

formal

terrorism

Islamophobic

The following bills were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: H.R. 1494. An act to strengthen partnerships between historically Black colleges and universities and minority- serving institutions and the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 2932. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to ensure that the needs of children are considered in homeland security planning, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 3413. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide for certain acquisition authorities for the Under Secretary of Management of the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 4432. An act to require the Department of Homeland Security to prepare a terrorism threat assessment relating to unmanned aircraft systems, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 4737. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require the Under Secretary for Science and Technology of the Department of Homeland Security to research and evaluate existing Federal research regarding approaches to mitigate climate change on homeland security to identify areas for further research within the Department, research and develop approaches to mitigate the consequences of climate change on homeland security, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 4753. An act to prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from operating or procuring foreign-made unmanned aircraft systems, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 5273. An act to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a plan to increase to 100 percent the rates of scanning of commercial and passenger vehicles entering the United States at land ports of entry along the border using large-scale non-intrusive inspection systems to enhance border security, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-02-11-pt1-PgS987-3

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-3931. A communication from the Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fees for Rice Inspection Services and Removal of Specific Fee References'' ((RIN0581-AD85) (Docket No. AMS-FGIS-18- 0088)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 5, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-3932. A communication from the Secretary of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to an Antideficiency Act (ADA) Violation; to the Committee on Appropriations. EC-3933. A communication from the Director of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Removal of Transferred OTS Regulations Regarding Certain Regulations for the Operations of State Savings Associations and Conforming Amendments to Other Regulations'' (RIN3064-AF14) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 5, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-3934. A communication from the Director of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Removal of Transferred OTS Regulations Regarding Accounting Requirements for State Savings Associations'' (RIN3064-AF15) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 5, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-3935. A communication from the Director of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Removal of Transferred OTS Regulations Regarding Regulatory Reporting Requirements, Reports and Audits of State Savings Associations'' (RIN3064-AF13) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 5, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-3936. 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 ``Other Real Estate Owned and Technical Amendments; Amendment of Effective Date and Correction'' (RIN1557-AE50) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 5, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-3937. 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: Revisions to the Supplementary Leverage Ratio to Exclude Central Bank Deposits of Banking Organizations Predominately Engaged in Custody, Safekeeping, and Asset Servicing Activities'' (RIN1557-AE60) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 5, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-3938. A communication from the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Commission Guidance on Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations'' (17 CFR Parts 211, 231, and 241) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 6, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-3939. A communication from the Director of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standardized Approach for Calculating the Exposure Amount of Derivative Contracts'' (RIN3064-AE80) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 6, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-3940. A communication from the Chairman of the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Board's semiannual Monetary Policy Report to Congress; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-3941. A communication from the Regulatory Specialist, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standardized Approach for Calculating the Exposure Amount of Derivative Contracts'' (RIN1557-AE44) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 5, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-3942. A communication from the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Transmission Planning Reliability Standard TPL-001-5'' ((18 CFR Part 40) (Docket No. RM19-10-000)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 10, 2020; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-3943. 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 and Designation of Areas; Florida; Source-Specific SO2 Permit Limits and Redesignation of the Hillsborough-Polk 2010 1-Hr SO2 Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Mulberry Unclassifiable Area to Attainment/ Unclassifiable'' (FRL No. 10005-23-Region 4) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3944. 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; Revisions to Cross- State Air Pollution Rule'' (FRL No. 10005-28-Region 4) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3945. 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; Idaho; Idaho Portion of the Logan UT-ID 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Nonattainment Area; Moderate Plan Elements'' (FRL No. 10005-17-Region 10) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3946. 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; Mississippi; Revisions to the State Implementation Plan Approved by the EPA Through Letter'' (FRL No. 10005-22-Region 4) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3947. 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 Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Delaware; Control of Emissions from Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills'' (FRL No. 9999-79-Region 3) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3948. 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 Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Pinal County Air Control District; Control of Emissions from Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills'' (FRL No. 10001-02-Region 9) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3949. 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; Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review'' (FRL No. 10005-06-OAR) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3950. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``The Navigable Waters Protection Rule; Definition of Waters of the United States'' (FRL No. 10004-88-OW) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2020; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3951. A communication from the Chairman of the United States International Trade Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Partially or Fully Assembled Into Other Products: Monitoring Developments in the Domestic Industry''; to the Committee on Finance. EC-3952. A communication from the Chairman of the United States International Trade Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Commission's Annual Performance Report for fiscal year 2019 and Annual Performance Plan for fiscal year 2020- 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-3953. 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 2020-8'' (Rev. Proc. 2020-8) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 6, 2020; to the Committee on Finance. EC-3954. 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 ``Return Due Date and Extended Due Date Changes'' ((RIN1545-BN12) (TD 9892)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 6, 2020; to the Committee on Finance. EC-3955. 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 Israel to support the production, inspection, assembly, testing, and repair of top-level assemblies, sub- assemblies, and components used in the Spice Family of Gliding Bomb Assemblies in the amount of $100,000,000 or more (Transmittal No. DDTC 19-028); to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-3956. 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 M2HB .50 caliber automatic machine guns, and M60E6 conversion kits with spare barrels to Thailand in the amount of $1,000,000 or more (Transmittal No. DDTC 19-077); to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-3957. 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 Canada, the Czech Republic, Poland, and the UK to support the manufacture, repair, and overhaul of the nose wheels, main wheels, carbon brakes, and carbon/carbon composite heat sinks for the end use on the F-35 aircraft in the amount of $100,000,000 or more (Transmittal No. DDTC 19- 046); to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-3958. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Department of State 2020 Civil Monetary Penalties Inflationary Adjustment'' (RIN1400-AF00) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 10, 2020; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-3959. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to section 3(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, the certification of a proposed transfer of major defense equipment, including the permanent transfer of six F-5 aircraft, fourteen J85 engines, components and spare parts, and related technical data from Malaysia to Tactical Air Support (TacAir, Inc.) with a sales value of approximately $108,900,000,000 (Transmittal No. RSAT-2019MF004); to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-3960. A communication from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to the Case-Zablocki Act, 1 U.S.C. 112b, as amended, the report of the texts and background statements of international agreements, other than treaties (List 2020- 0004-2020-0021); to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-02-11-pt1-PgS988

formal

public school

racist

______SENATE RESOLUTION 495--DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 12, 2020, AS ``DARWIN DAY'' AND RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF SCIENCE TO THE BETTERMENT OF HUMANITY Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Mr. Murphy, and Mr. Whitehouse) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 495 Whereas Charles Darwin developed the theory of evolution by natural selection, which provides humanity with a logical and intellectually compelling explanation for the diversity of life on Earth; Whereas the validity of the theory of evolution by natural selection is strongly supported by the monumental amount of scientific evidence Charles Darwin compiled to support the theory and the modern understanding of the science of genetics; Whereas the human curiosity and ingenuity exemplified by Charles Darwin have promoted new scientific discoveries that have helped humanity solve many problems and improve living conditions; Whereas the advancement of science must be protected from individuals unconcerned with the adverse impacts of global warming and climate change; Whereas the teaching of creationism in some public schools compromises the scientific and academic integrity of the education systems of the United States; Whereas Charles Darwin is a worthy symbol of scientific advancement on whom to focus and around whom to build a global celebration of science and humanity intended to promote a common bond among all the people of the Earth; and Whereas February 12, 2020, is the anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin in 1809 and is an appropriate date to designate as ``Darwin Day'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates February 12, 2020, as ``Darwin Day''; (2) recognizes the importance of science to the betterment of humanity; and (3) recognizes Charles Darwin as a worthy symbol for celebrating science, the achievements of reason, and the advancement of human knowledge.

2020-01-06

None

Senate

CREC-2020-02-11-pt1-PgS993

formal

public schools

racist

______SENATE RESOLUTION 495--DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 12, 2020, AS ``DARWIN DAY'' AND RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF SCIENCE TO THE BETTERMENT OF HUMANITY Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Mr. Murphy, and Mr. Whitehouse) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 495 Whereas Charles Darwin developed the theory of evolution by natural selection, which provides humanity with a logical and intellectually compelling explanation for the diversity of life on Earth; Whereas the validity of the theory of evolution by natural selection is strongly supported by the monumental amount of scientific evidence Charles Darwin compiled to support the theory and the modern understanding of the science of genetics; Whereas the human curiosity and ingenuity exemplified by Charles Darwin have promoted new scientific discoveries that have helped humanity solve many problems and improve living conditions; Whereas the advancement of science must be protected from individuals unconcerned with the adverse impacts of global warming and climate change; Whereas the teaching of creationism in some public schools compromises the scientific and academic integrity of the education systems of the United States; Whereas Charles Darwin is a worthy symbol of scientific advancement on whom to focus and around whom to build a global celebration of science and humanity intended to promote a common bond among all the people of the Earth; and Whereas February 12, 2020, is the anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin in 1809 and is an appropriate date to designate as ``Darwin Day'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates February 12, 2020, as ``Darwin Day''; (2) recognizes the importance of science to the betterment of humanity; and (3) recognizes Charles Darwin as a worthy symbol for celebrating science, the achievements of reason, and the advancement of human knowledge.

2020-01-06

None

Senate

CREC-2020-02-11-pt1-PgS993

formal

media control

antisemitic

Mr. COTTON (for himself, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Gardner) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 497 Whereas Dr. Li Wenliang was a 34-year-old ophthalmologist working in Wuhan, China; Whereas research indicates that the first patient infected with the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) exhibited symptoms on December 1, 2019; Whereas, in December 2019, Dr. Li notified his associates in the medical community in China about the outbreak of 2019- nCoV; Whereas, after raising concerns about the spread of 2019- nCoV, Dr. Li was summoned by Chinese officials and forced to sign a statement retracting his warnings about the virus and confessing that he had spread illegal rumors; Whereas Chinese government authorities played down dangers to the public for weeks as 2019-nCoV continued to spread, with more than 42,000 confirmed cases in China alone and at least 1,000 deaths reported as of February 11, 2020; Whereas Dr. Li continued to work as an ophthalmologist at Wuhan Central Hospital despite his knowledge of the outbreak, and appears to have been infected himself with 2019-nCoV after coming in contact with a patient he was treating for glaucoma; Whereas, on the morning of February 7, 2020, in the hospital where he worked, Dr. Li Wenliang died after contracting 2019-nCoV; Whereas, before he passed away, Dr. Li stated, ``If the officials had disclosed information about the epidemic earlier, I think it would have been a lot better. There should be more openness and transparency.''; Whereas the people of China expressed their grief and anger on social media after the death of Dr. Li, with the phrase ``I want freedom of speech'' emerging as a top trending topic on the Weibo platform; Whereas the Government of the People's Republic of China continues to limit free expression, and stepped up censorship after online criticism and investigative reports by Chinese journalists suggesting that officials underestimated and underplayed the threat of 2019-nCoV; Whereas Freedom House has listed China as the ``worst abuser of internet freedom'' in the world for the fourth year in a row, and in the aftermath of the outbreak of 2019-nCoV, there are numerous and well-documented instances of the ``Great Firewall'' of China suppressing the free flow of critical and medically important information about the pandemic; Whereas the Government of the People's Republic of China has endangered the people of Taiwan and people around the world by using its influence to limit Taiwan's access to the benefits of membership in the World Health Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization, particularly during the current outbreak; and Whereas the World Health Organization has declared 2019- nCoV a Public Health Emergency of International Concern: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) honors the life and contributions of Dr. Li Wenliang, and extends heartfelt sympathy to his family and to the families of all who have passed during this outbreak; (2) expresses its support for the people of China as they face this unprecedented public health challenge; (3) expresses gratitude to Dr. Li and all Chinese medical personnel and citizens for their efforts to spread awareness of 2019-nCoV and treat individuals who have contracted the disease; (4) calls on the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Communist Party of China-- (A) to be open and transparent in investigating and responding to 2019-nCoV; (B) to ensure that Chinese citizens and the international community have free and unfettered access, without censorship or social media controls, to information about 2019-nCoV; (C) to cooperate fully with the United States Government, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in providing medical access, sharing information, and developing treatment to combat 2019-nCoV; (D) to cooperate fully with other governments, especially those in Southeast Asia, Africa, Latin America, and other regions whose health systems already face high burdens and are operating from a lower base of capability, as well as international health organizations in combating 2019-nCoV; and (E) to cease efforts to exclude Taiwan from international organizations, including the World Health Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization; (5) affirms the vital importance of Dr. Li's belief that ``[t]here should be more openness and transparency'' in China; (6) affirms that freedom of expression is a social good that enables experts to sound public health warnings and helps citizens ensure that their government addresses weaknesses in crisis response; and (7) strongly supports the people of China in their demand for freedom of speech.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-02-11-pt1-PgS994

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-3961. A communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to transnational criminal organizations that was declared in Executive Order 13581 of July 24, 2011; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-3962. A communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to persons undermining democratic processes or institutions in Zimbabwe that was declared in Executive Order 13288 of March 6, 2003; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-3963. A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the fiscal year 2019 report of the Federal Coordinated Health Care Office; to the Committee on Finance. EC-3964. A communication from the Director of the Regulations and Disclosure Law Division, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Import Restrictions Imposed on Archaeological Material from Jordan'' (RIN1515-AE51) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 5, 2020; to the Committee on Finance. EC-3965. A communication from the Director of the Regulations and Disclosure Law Division, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Emergency Import Restrictions Imposed on Certain Archaeological and Ethnological Material from Yemen'' (RIN1515-AE50) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 5, 2020; to the Committee on Finance. EC-3966. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, sixteen (16) reports relative to vacancies in the Department of State, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 10, 2020; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-3967. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``International Traffic in Arms Regulations: U.S. Munitions List Categories I, II, and III'' ((RIN1400-AE30) (22 CFR Parts 121,123, 124, 126, and 129)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 6, 2020; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-3968. A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Parts A and B Supplemental Awards for Fiscal Year 2019 Report to Congress''; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-3969. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Guidelines for Determining the Probability of Causation under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Technical Amendments'' (RIN0920-AA74) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 5, 2020; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-3970. A communication from the Deputy Director, Office of Documents and Regulations Management, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Administrative Simplification: Modification of the Requirements for the Use of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) National Council for Prescription Drug Programs (NCPDP) D.0 Standard'' (RIN0938-AT52) 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-3971. A communication from the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, transmitting, pursuant to law, the office's Congressional Budget Justification, Annual Performance Plan for fiscal year 2021, and the annual Performance Report for fiscal year 2019; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-3972. A communication from the Associate General Counsel for General Law, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 5, 2020; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-3973. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 23-203, ``Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Support Clarification Amendment Act of 2019''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-3974. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 23-204, ``Primary Election Filing Requirement Temporary Amendment Act of 2020''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-3975. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 23-216, ``Parkside Parcel E and J Mixed- Income Apartments Tax Abatement Temporary Amendment Act of 2020''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-3976. A communication from the Associate Director, Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Commission's Annual Sunshine Act Report for 2019; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-3977. A communication from the Director of the Office of Financial Reporting and Policy, Office of the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``FY 2019 Agency Financial Report''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-3978. A communication from the Acting Secretary of the Commission, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Commission Reporting Requirements Under Section 8 of the Clayton Act'' received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 5, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-3979. A communication from the Director, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to applications for delayed-notice search warrants and extensions during fiscal years 2018 and 2019; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-3980. A communication from the Chief of Regulatory Development, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Extension of Compliance Date for Entry-Level Driver Training'' (RIN2126-AC25) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 5, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3981. 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 Class E Airspace; Grundy, Virginia'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0785)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3982. 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; Winona, Minnesota'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0764)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3983. 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- 0442)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3984. 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; De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0702)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3985. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0860)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3986. 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-2019-0725)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3987. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0610)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3988. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0721)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3989. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-1078)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3990. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0858)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-3991. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, Office of General Counsel, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, two (2) reports relative to vacancies in the Department of Transportation, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 5, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-02-12-pt1-PgS1039-8

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Under clause 3 of rule XII, 84. The SPEAKER presented a petition of Mr. Gregory D. Watson, a citizen of Austin, TX, relative to requesting that Congress enact legislation to repeal from existing Federal law any statutory impediments to the Federal government--and State governments--availing themselves of their purchasing power to leverage and negotiate lower prices from pharmaceutical manufacturers for prescription drugs taken by recipients of the Medicare or Medicaid programs; which was referred jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means.

2020-01-06

Unknown

House

CREC-2020-02-13-pt1-PgH1158-6

formal

based

white supremacist

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss solutions to the climate crisis, which threatens the health and well-being of my constituents in Maryland and Americans across the Nation. The urgency of climate change asks us to be our most cooperative and collaborative selves and to seek policy solutions that far outlast our legacies in office. As the threat of climate change becomes more and more visible to the American public, people are demanding action from their Federal Government. This year, we have seen an unprecedented level of interest from Americans of all ages and walks of life on real solutions to this complex problem. A variety of comprehensive solutions have been proposed, some that represent a departure from how the Federal Government has addressed climate change in the past, while others utilize existing Federal frameworks to drive climate action. History tells us that our Federal agencies have an incredible capacity to evolve to meet the threats of their time. In previous administrations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been a dynamic steward of domestic environmental law throughout the last half-century and is well-practiced in addressing environmental concerns as they emerge. Unfortunately, Congress and the President have failed to provide the EPA with the direction and funding it needs to address the issue of climate change in earnest. I support Senator Carper's Clean Economy Act for this very reason. The Clean Economy Act understands that the EPA lies at the center of America's climate future and empowers it to address climate change proactively. The Clean Economy Act provides the agency with the clear goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to match the urgency to reduce warming global temperatures. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's--IPCC--October 2018 Special Report on climate warns that warming above 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels will have a catastrophic impact on our global systems. The United States reaching net-zero is an essential component to keep global temperature warming below the 1.5 degrees Celsius cap. Many of this administration's nominees are fond of pointing out that they are not scientists, implying that they are not qualified to make decisions related to climate change. I will point out that most of us are not economistseither, but that doesn't stop us from making decisions that affect the economy. We have a responsibility to make informed decisions affecting our climate, environment, and natural resources, which are at the heart of our ability to maintain a healthy sustainable economy. There are some tough decisions to make in the face of climate change that reasonable people will disagree about, but the basic science should not be ignored. Whether to accept the facts of the matter should not be a partisan debate. Fortunately, the IPCC, to which the U.S. Government and scientific community is a leading contributor, continues to provide a well-documented guide for what we need to do to respond to the climate crisis. According to the IPCC's landmark Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 deg.C, the model pathways that would enable us to limit global warming to the critical benchmark of 1.5 deg.C above pre-industrial levels reach net zero global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions by approximately 2050.This bill is based on the science that demonstrates the importance and value of reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by not later than 2050. We can do this, and making the necessary investments to do so will strengthen our economy, create jobs, and protect our public health and national security. The most expensive and unrealistic course of action is to ignore the mounting costs of climate change and fail to respond. The legislation ensures that the EPA's plan incorporates greenhouse gas reduction, while expanding opportunities for the U.S. labor force. After all, any conversation about a new U.S. energy future without the participation of working people is incomplete. The Clean Economy Act ensures the EPA has the power to invest in the development and deployment of low- and zero-greenhouse gas emitting technologies and that the U.S. workforce reaps the benefits of an equitable transition away from fossil fuels. The support of the Blue Green Alliance, a coalition of labor unions like the United Steelworkers and the Utility Workers Union of America and environmental organizations like the League of Conservation Voters and Natural Resources Defense Council demonstrates that a diverse collection of interests see a net-zero future for our country. This legislation builds off bipartisan progress we have made this Congress using existing Federal frameworks to reduce emissions and prepare for the effects of climate change that are already here. In November 2018, the Fourth National Climate Assessment concluded that climate change is affecting the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, and human health and welfare across the U.S. and its territories.'' The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee favorably reported the American's Transportation Infrastructure Act in July 2019 that for the first time included a Climate Title. The Federal assistance in it will help the transportation sector lower emissions through infrastructure for electric and alternatively fueled vehicles. The bill also supports States and local agencies preparing our Nation's roads and bridges to withstand climate impacts. I encourage my colleagues across committees to work together to enact both pieces of legislation to prepare all sectors of the clean economy for the climate reality before us today. One of the most critical climate change impacts that we must take immediate action on is the threat to our water infrastructure. This week, GAO is releasing a report on water infrastructure and climate change in response to a request I made with my colleague Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. We asked the GAO to study what is known about the effects of climate change on the Nation's domestic water systems and the potential fiscal risks posed by those effects and evaluate Federal actions that may be taken to reduce such risks. Therein, EPA estimates that drinking water and wastewater utilities need to invest almost $744 billion to repair and replace their existing infrastructure over the next 20 years. GAO finds climate change is increasing these costs. In 2017, it cost the Federal Government over $300 billion to repair damage resulting from climate- and weather-related events, including damage to drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, according to NOAA. The faster we act to make our water infrastructure resilient to climate change impacts, as well as address the root cause of climate change through legislation such as the Clean Economy Act, the better we can reduce the risks and control the costs. Our drinking water and wastewater treatment systems are at great risk from climate change impacts such as heavy rainfall, sea level rise, and flooding that local managers are experiencing today. The GAO report shows a path toward minimizing future damage. This study documents the need for the Federal Government to work with States and local utilities to strengthen the resilience of water infrastructure to climate impacts and makes practical suggestions that we should implement immediately through incorporating climate effects into infrastructure planning and providing enhanced technical and financial assistance. My colleague Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and I introduced S. 2636, the Clean Water Infrastructure Resilience and Sustainability Act to prepare our publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities for the impacts of climate change. These efforts will work in tandem with the goals of the Clean Economy Act to seek net-zero emissions while preventing further damage to our national infrastructure by the extreme weather events we are already seeing. The Clean Economy Act directs the EPA to coordinate with other Federal agencies to encourage the restoration of ecosystems such as forests and wetlands that sequester carbon and improve climate resilience, particularly on Federal and Tribal land. The fight to reduce the greenhouse gases that cause climate change is not unlike the challenge we face in cleaning up and restoring water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its rivers and streams. Many of the solutions, such as restoring natural carbons sinks like wetlands, are the same. Wetlands act like natural sponges, storing excess carbon in soils, as well as soaking up stormwater and trapping pollutants before they reach rivers, streams, and the Chesapeake Bay. The original Chesapeake Bay Agreement was a simple, one-page pledge signed in 1983 recognizing that a cooperative approach was necessary to address the bay's pollution problems. The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement set the first numeric goals to reduce pollution and restore the bay ecosystem. Today, the EPA-led Chesapeake Bay Program partnership engages dozens of agencies and organizations in the effort to restore the bay and its rivers. I am encouraged to see a number of the agencies named in section 2 of the Clean Economy Act are Federal agency partners, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--NOAA--U.S. Department of Defense--DOD--and U.S. Department of the Interior--DOI. This body recently unanimously passed proposals I authored that will benefit the Chesapeake Bay watershed and wetlands nationwide. Foremost was a provision increasing the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization to a historic $92 million. The bills were part of a bipartisan package of wildlife conservation legislation, the America's Conservation Enhancement--ACE--Act. The ACE Act served as a substitute amendment for the North America Wetlands Conservation Extension Act--NAWCA--which provides grants to protect wetlands. We have demonstrated our ability to respond legislatively to challenges that seemed insurmountable 30 years ago. I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor this new consensus bill.

2020-01-06

Mr. CARDIN

Senate

CREC-2020-02-13-pt1-PgS1067-2

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss solutions to the climate crisis, which threatens the health and well-being of my constituents in Maryland and Americans across the Nation. The urgency of climate change asks us to be our most cooperative and collaborative selves and to seek policy solutions that far outlast our legacies in office. As the threat of climate change becomes more and more visible to the American public, people are demanding action from their Federal Government. This year, we have seen an unprecedented level of interest from Americans of all ages and walks of life on real solutions to this complex problem. A variety of comprehensive solutions have been proposed, some that represent a departure from how the Federal Government has addressed climate change in the past, while others utilize existing Federal frameworks to drive climate action. History tells us that our Federal agencies have an incredible capacity to evolve to meet the threats of their time. In previous administrations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been a dynamic steward of domestic environmental law throughout the last half-century and is well-practiced in addressing environmental concerns as they emerge. Unfortunately, Congress and the President have failed to provide the EPA with the direction and funding it needs to address the issue of climate change in earnest. I support Senator Carper's Clean Economy Act for this very reason. The Clean Economy Act understands that the EPA lies at the center of America's climate future and empowers it to address climate change proactively. The Clean Economy Act provides the agency with the clear goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to match the urgency to reduce warming global temperatures. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's--IPCC--October 2018 Special Report on climate warns that warming above 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels will have a catastrophic impact on our global systems. The United States reaching net-zero is an essential component to keep global temperature warming below the 1.5 degrees Celsius cap. Many of this administration's nominees are fond of pointing out that they are not scientists, implying that they are not qualified to make decisions related to climate change. I will point out that most of us are not economistseither, but that doesn't stop us from making decisions that affect the economy. We have a responsibility to make informed decisions affecting our climate, environment, and natural resources, which are at the heart of our ability to maintain a healthy sustainable economy. There are some tough decisions to make in the face of climate change that reasonable people will disagree about, but the basic science should not be ignored. Whether to accept the facts of the matter should not be a partisan debate. Fortunately, the IPCC, to which the U.S. Government and scientific community is a leading contributor, continues to provide a well-documented guide for what we need to do to respond to the climate crisis. According to the IPCC's landmark Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 deg.C, the model pathways that would enable us to limit global warming to the critical benchmark of 1.5 deg.C above pre-industrial levels reach net zero global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions by approximately 2050.This bill is based on the science that demonstrates the importance and value of reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by not later than 2050. We can do this, and making the necessary investments to do so will strengthen our economy, create jobs, and protect our public health and national security. The most expensive and unrealistic course of action is to ignore the mounting costs of climate change and fail to respond. The legislation ensures that the EPA's plan incorporates greenhouse gas reduction, while expanding opportunities for the U.S. labor force. After all, any conversation about a new U.S. energy future without the participation of working people is incomplete. The Clean Economy Act ensures the EPA has the power to invest in the development and deployment of low- and zero-greenhouse gas emitting technologies and that the U.S. workforce reaps the benefits of an equitable transition away from fossil fuels. The support of the Blue Green Alliance, a coalition of labor unions like the United Steelworkers and the Utility Workers Union of America and environmental organizations like the League of Conservation Voters and Natural Resources Defense Council demonstrates that a diverse collection of interests see a net-zero future for our country. This legislation builds off bipartisan progress we have made this Congress using existing Federal frameworks to reduce emissions and prepare for the effects of climate change that are already here. In November 2018, the Fourth National Climate Assessment concluded that climate change is affecting the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, and human health and welfare across the U.S. and its territories.'' The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee favorably reported the American's Transportation Infrastructure Act in July 2019 that for the first time included a Climate Title. The Federal assistance in it will help the transportation sector lower emissions through infrastructure for electric and alternatively fueled vehicles. The bill also supports States and local agencies preparing our Nation's roads and bridges to withstand climate impacts. I encourage my colleagues across committees to work together to enact both pieces of legislation to prepare all sectors of the clean economy for the climate reality before us today. One of the most critical climate change impacts that we must take immediate action on is the threat to our water infrastructure. This week, GAO is releasing a report on water infrastructure and climate change in response to a request I made with my colleague Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. We asked the GAO to study what is known about the effects of climate change on the Nation's domestic water systems and the potential fiscal risks posed by those effects and evaluate Federal actions that may be taken to reduce such risks. Therein, EPA estimates that drinking water and wastewater utilities need to invest almost $744 billion to repair and replace their existing infrastructure over the next 20 years. GAO finds climate change is increasing these costs. In 2017, it cost the Federal Government over $300 billion to repair damage resulting from climate- and weather-related events, including damage to drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, according to NOAA. The faster we act to make our water infrastructure resilient to climate change impacts, as well as address the root cause of climate change through legislation such as the Clean Economy Act, the better we can reduce the risks and control the costs. Our drinking water and wastewater treatment systems are at great risk from climate change impacts such as heavy rainfall, sea level rise, and flooding that local managers are experiencing today. The GAO report shows a path toward minimizing future damage. This study documents the need for the Federal Government to work with States and local utilities to strengthen the resilience of water infrastructure to climate impacts and makes practical suggestions that we should implement immediately through incorporating climate effects into infrastructure planning and providing enhanced technical and financial assistance. My colleague Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and I introduced S. 2636, the Clean Water Infrastructure Resilience and Sustainability Act to prepare our publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities for the impacts of climate change. These efforts will work in tandem with the goals of the Clean Economy Act to seek net-zero emissions while preventing further damage to our national infrastructure by the extreme weather events we are already seeing. The Clean Economy Act directs the EPA to coordinate with other Federal agencies to encourage the restoration of ecosystems such as forests and wetlands that sequester carbon and improve climate resilience, particularly on Federal and Tribal land. The fight to reduce the greenhouse gases that cause climate change is not unlike the challenge we face in cleaning up and restoring water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its rivers and streams. Many of the solutions, such as restoring natural carbons sinks like wetlands, are the same. Wetlands act like natural sponges, storing excess carbon in soils, as well as soaking up stormwater and trapping pollutants before they reach rivers, streams, and the Chesapeake Bay. The original Chesapeake Bay Agreement was a simple, one-page pledge signed in 1983 recognizing that a cooperative approach was necessary to address the bay's pollution problems. The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement set the first numeric goals to reduce pollution and restore the bay ecosystem. Today, the EPA-led Chesapeake Bay Program partnership engages dozens of agencies and organizations in the effort to restore the bay and its rivers. I am encouraged to see a number of the agencies named in section 2 of the Clean Economy Act are Federal agency partners, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--NOAA--U.S. Department of Defense--DOD--and U.S. Department of the Interior--DOI. This body recently unanimously passed proposals I authored that will benefit the Chesapeake Bay watershed and wetlands nationwide. Foremost was a provision increasing the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization to a historic $92 million. The bills were part of a bipartisan package of wildlife conservation legislation, the America's Conservation Enhancement--ACE--Act. The ACE Act served as a substitute amendment for the North America Wetlands Conservation Extension Act--NAWCA--which provides grants to protect wetlands. We have demonstrated our ability to respond legislatively to challenges that seemed insurmountable 30 years ago. I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor this new consensus bill.

2020-01-06

Mr. CARDIN

Senate

CREC-2020-02-13-pt1-PgS1067-2

formal

welfare

racist

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss solutions to the climate crisis, which threatens the health and well-being of my constituents in Maryland and Americans across the Nation. The urgency of climate change asks us to be our most cooperative and collaborative selves and to seek policy solutions that far outlast our legacies in office. As the threat of climate change becomes more and more visible to the American public, people are demanding action from their Federal Government. This year, we have seen an unprecedented level of interest from Americans of all ages and walks of life on real solutions to this complex problem. A variety of comprehensive solutions have been proposed, some that represent a departure from how the Federal Government has addressed climate change in the past, while others utilize existing Federal frameworks to drive climate action. History tells us that our Federal agencies have an incredible capacity to evolve to meet the threats of their time. In previous administrations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been a dynamic steward of domestic environmental law throughout the last half-century and is well-practiced in addressing environmental concerns as they emerge. Unfortunately, Congress and the President have failed to provide the EPA with the direction and funding it needs to address the issue of climate change in earnest. I support Senator Carper's Clean Economy Act for this very reason. The Clean Economy Act understands that the EPA lies at the center of America's climate future and empowers it to address climate change proactively. The Clean Economy Act provides the agency with the clear goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to match the urgency to reduce warming global temperatures. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's--IPCC--October 2018 Special Report on climate warns that warming above 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels will have a catastrophic impact on our global systems. The United States reaching net-zero is an essential component to keep global temperature warming below the 1.5 degrees Celsius cap. Many of this administration's nominees are fond of pointing out that they are not scientists, implying that they are not qualified to make decisions related to climate change. I will point out that most of us are not economistseither, but that doesn't stop us from making decisions that affect the economy. We have a responsibility to make informed decisions affecting our climate, environment, and natural resources, which are at the heart of our ability to maintain a healthy sustainable economy. There are some tough decisions to make in the face of climate change that reasonable people will disagree about, but the basic science should not be ignored. Whether to accept the facts of the matter should not be a partisan debate. Fortunately, the IPCC, to which the U.S. Government and scientific community is a leading contributor, continues to provide a well-documented guide for what we need to do to respond to the climate crisis. According to the IPCC's landmark Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 deg.C, the model pathways that would enable us to limit global warming to the critical benchmark of 1.5 deg.C above pre-industrial levels reach net zero global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions by approximately 2050.This bill is based on the science that demonstrates the importance and value of reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by not later than 2050. We can do this, and making the necessary investments to do so will strengthen our economy, create jobs, and protect our public health and national security. The most expensive and unrealistic course of action is to ignore the mounting costs of climate change and fail to respond. The legislation ensures that the EPA's plan incorporates greenhouse gas reduction, while expanding opportunities for the U.S. labor force. After all, any conversation about a new U.S. energy future without the participation of working people is incomplete. The Clean Economy Act ensures the EPA has the power to invest in the development and deployment of low- and zero-greenhouse gas emitting technologies and that the U.S. workforce reaps the benefits of an equitable transition away from fossil fuels. The support of the Blue Green Alliance, a coalition of labor unions like the United Steelworkers and the Utility Workers Union of America and environmental organizations like the League of Conservation Voters and Natural Resources Defense Council demonstrates that a diverse collection of interests see a net-zero future for our country. This legislation builds off bipartisan progress we have made this Congress using existing Federal frameworks to reduce emissions and prepare for the effects of climate change that are already here. In November 2018, the Fourth National Climate Assessment concluded that climate change is affecting the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, and human health and welfare across the U.S. and its territories.'' The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee favorably reported the American's Transportation Infrastructure Act in July 2019 that for the first time included a Climate Title. The Federal assistance in it will help the transportation sector lower emissions through infrastructure for electric and alternatively fueled vehicles. The bill also supports States and local agencies preparing our Nation's roads and bridges to withstand climate impacts. I encourage my colleagues across committees to work together to enact both pieces of legislation to prepare all sectors of the clean economy for the climate reality before us today. One of the most critical climate change impacts that we must take immediate action on is the threat to our water infrastructure. This week, GAO is releasing a report on water infrastructure and climate change in response to a request I made with my colleague Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. We asked the GAO to study what is known about the effects of climate change on the Nation's domestic water systems and the potential fiscal risks posed by those effects and evaluate Federal actions that may be taken to reduce such risks. Therein, EPA estimates that drinking water and wastewater utilities need to invest almost $744 billion to repair and replace their existing infrastructure over the next 20 years. GAO finds climate change is increasing these costs. In 2017, it cost the Federal Government over $300 billion to repair damage resulting from climate- and weather-related events, including damage to drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, according to NOAA. The faster we act to make our water infrastructure resilient to climate change impacts, as well as address the root cause of climate change through legislation such as the Clean Economy Act, the better we can reduce the risks and control the costs. Our drinking water and wastewater treatment systems are at great risk from climate change impacts such as heavy rainfall, sea level rise, and flooding that local managers are experiencing today. The GAO report shows a path toward minimizing future damage. This study documents the need for the Federal Government to work with States and local utilities to strengthen the resilience of water infrastructure to climate impacts and makes practical suggestions that we should implement immediately through incorporating climate effects into infrastructure planning and providing enhanced technical and financial assistance. My colleague Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and I introduced S. 2636, the Clean Water Infrastructure Resilience and Sustainability Act to prepare our publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities for the impacts of climate change. These efforts will work in tandem with the goals of the Clean Economy Act to seek net-zero emissions while preventing further damage to our national infrastructure by the extreme weather events we are already seeing. The Clean Economy Act directs the EPA to coordinate with other Federal agencies to encourage the restoration of ecosystems such as forests and wetlands that sequester carbon and improve climate resilience, particularly on Federal and Tribal land. The fight to reduce the greenhouse gases that cause climate change is not unlike the challenge we face in cleaning up and restoring water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its rivers and streams. Many of the solutions, such as restoring natural carbons sinks like wetlands, are the same. Wetlands act like natural sponges, storing excess carbon in soils, as well as soaking up stormwater and trapping pollutants before they reach rivers, streams, and the Chesapeake Bay. The original Chesapeake Bay Agreement was a simple, one-page pledge signed in 1983 recognizing that a cooperative approach was necessary to address the bay's pollution problems. The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement set the first numeric goals to reduce pollution and restore the bay ecosystem. Today, the EPA-led Chesapeake Bay Program partnership engages dozens of agencies and organizations in the effort to restore the bay and its rivers. I am encouraged to see a number of the agencies named in section 2 of the Clean Economy Act are Federal agency partners, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--NOAA--U.S. Department of Defense--DOD--and U.S. Department of the Interior--DOI. This body recently unanimously passed proposals I authored that will benefit the Chesapeake Bay watershed and wetlands nationwide. Foremost was a provision increasing the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization to a historic $92 million. The bills were part of a bipartisan package of wildlife conservation legislation, the America's Conservation Enhancement--ACE--Act. The ACE Act served as a substitute amendment for the North America Wetlands Conservation Extension Act--NAWCA--which provides grants to protect wetlands. We have demonstrated our ability to respond legislatively to challenges that seemed insurmountable 30 years ago. I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor this new consensus bill.

2020-01-06

Mr. CARDIN

Senate

CREC-2020-02-13-pt1-PgS1067-2

formal

based

white supremacist

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier today, we voted on an amendment to S.J. Res. 68 that was offered by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Risch. That amendment consisted of one sentence, as follows: ``The President has a constitutional responsibility to take actions to defend the United States, its territories, possessions, citizens, servicemembers and diplomats from attack.'' On its face, the Risch amendment seems reasonable. The President does have a responsibility to defend the country. But, as is so often the case, the devil is in the details, or the absence of details, and when it involves engaging U.S. Armed Forces in hostilities, we should pay particularly close attention. I was among those who opposed the amendment and I want to explain why. First, it is important to note that the underlying resolution already states that ``[nothing] in this section shall be construed to prevent the United States from defending itself from imminent attack.'' So there is no question about the President's authority to defend the country. But the central purpose of the resolution is to give meaning to the Congress's constitutional authority--the Congress's sole power--to declare war. For far too long this body has surrendered that duty to the executive branch. In 2002, when the Senate considered whether or not to authorize President George W. Bush to invade Iraq, many in this body argued that providing the President with that authority was needed to convince Saddam Hussein to back down. I, instead, saw it as Congress abdicating its constitutional duty by providing the President with open-ended authority to use military force against Iraq. For that reason, among others, I voted no. In fact, my worst fears were realized. Not only was the justification for that war based on lies, but thousands of Americans died, trillions of dollars were wasted that could have been used to fix what's broken in this country, and the American people are no safer. Today that authority is being used in ways that no one envisioned or intended to justify an attack against another country, Iran, nearly two decades later. We should learn from that costly mistake. The obvious implication of the Risch amendment is that any President is authorized, and has an affirmative responsibility, to use military force at anytime, anywhere, indefinitely, to prevent an unspecified attack that might occur sometime in the future. There is no requirement that it be ``imminent''. There is no requirement that such an attack be anything other than speculative or imagined. Given the way this and past administrations have expansively interpreted past authorizations for the use of force, the Risch amendment could be interpreted to further erode Congress's ability to prevent a President from unilaterally sending U.S. forces into hostilities without prior consultation with, or further authorization from, the Congress. Such an endorsement--even if unintended--of unchecked Executive power undermines the purpose of the underlying joint resolution, and it makes a mockery of the Congress's sole power to declare war. That is not something any of us should condone.

2020-01-06

Mr. LEAHY

Senate

CREC-2020-02-13-pt1-PgS1067

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to a valued and long-standing member of my staff, Iyad Shihadeh. After nearly 9 years of serving the people of California in my San Francisco office, tomorrow will be Iyad's last day. Iyad first joined my team in 2011 as a staff assistant and quickly made an impression through his diligent efforts on behalf of the Californians calling or visiting our office. Iyad was quickly promoted to the position of constituent services representative, where he managed as many as 200 casework requests simultaneously between the Departments of State, Justice, and Homeland Security. Iyad demonstrated an aptitude for problem solving on behalf of individuals and organizations needing help navigating the Federal bureaucracy. Additionally, Iyad took charge of the office's intern program, guiding the dozens of students each year working in the San Francisco office. Many of our former State interns and staff are indebted to him for his thoughtful career advice as they made their first forays into the field of public service. In 2017, Iyad was promoted again to be the director of constituent services,in charge of a team of staff who receive, process, and advocate for the casework needs of Californians seeking assistance from Federal agencies. I have depended on Iyad's sound judgment, management capabilities, and cool head in this critical function. As all Senators know, your casework director needs to be a special person. They represent you to constituents who are in need and often have nowhere else to turn. I have been particularly lucky to have Iyad in this role; he has performed with skill and with a deft personal touch. I am proud of our casework successes under Iyad's management in recovering millions of dollars in benefits for those needing help with Social Security checks, student loans, tax refunds, veterans' benefits, and other payments from the Federal Government. He has worked on behalf of countless constituents seeking visas or other immigration benefits. When a constituent is in a foreign jail or has lost their passport overseas, Iyad has been on the case, immediately, professionally, and successfully. I am particularly thankful for Iyad's help with Maria Mendoza, a nurse from Oakland who is back in the United States with her children after Iyad's work in securing an H1-B visa; also Maria Isabel Bueso, a young woman from Guatemala who has lived in the United States for most of her life in order to receive lifesaving medication, but who was threatened last year with removal. Iyad worked with the family and with Judiciary Committee staff, and now, Isabel has been given a stay from deportation. In addition to his casework efforts, Iyad has provided guidance in my San Francisco office. His steady presence has been indispensable for three State directors and four chiefs of staff. Before joining my team, Iyad graduated from Purdue University with a double major in history and political science in 2009. He received academic honors, graduating in the top 10 percent of his class. Following his lifelong passion of international issues, he dedicated himself to his studies and wrote a dissertation titled, ``They Also Served: The Untold Story of the Egyptian Labour Corps in World War One.'' In 2010, he graduated from the London School of Economics, where he received a master of science in the history of empires. His efforts afforded him a deeper knowledge of economics and globalization, and once again, he centered his academic curiosities on foreign affairs by writing his thesis on ``Money, Arms, and Superpowers: British Foreign Policy towards the War of Attrition.'' While I am sad to see him go, I am thrilled for Iyad's family as he will join them in the day-to-day management of their restaurant in south San Francisco. His energy, ideas, and ability to connect with people will undoubtedly serve his family and community well for many years to come. I am deeply grateful for the wisdom and dedication that Iyad Shihadeh has brought to our office and his dedication on behalf of the people of California. I thank Iyad and wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

2020-01-06

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Senate

CREC-2020-02-13-pt1-PgS1069

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to recognize the life of Ugiaqtaq Wesley Aiken, who died January 6, 2020 at the age 93 years old, only 19 days shy of his 94th birthday. With the passing of Native elder Wesley Aiken, Alaska has lost a highly respected Inupiat leader who dedicated his life to leadership in the Alaska Native community and ensuring that cultural and traditional knowledge will be passed down to younger generations. Wesley Aiken was born in 1926 in Utqiagvik, to a completely subsistence lifestyle north of the Arctic Circle. He grew up in a small village, Isuk. which lays east of Utqiagvik, until the age of 12, moving for his education. As a teenager, he became a reindeer header for 3 years in order to help out his family. He was a man of many trades--he was a mechanic, laborer, member of the Alaska Territorial Guard, and later a member of the Alaska National Guard. He served as the land chief for Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation following its formation in 1973. He was a spiritual leader for the community and was always asked to pray. He would pray when the whale was caught, before big celebrations, the Nalukatak blanket toss, the Winter Games, and he prayed with the whaling captains. He loved the gatherings of the people and strived to see all the community's children participate. He was a hard workerand would say, ``If you have dreams to do something, you, yourself have to work hard to get to that goal.'' Wesley grew up using dog teams in the wintertime to camp and hunt long before snow machines were prevalent and available in his region. His traditional knowledge of the subsistence lifestyle was extensive, and he enthusiastically shared with his community. He learned whaling from his grandfather and uncle and later became a whaling captain. He took it upon himself to teach the next generation whaling. His daughter's generation was sent off to boarding schools, and so many youth were not taught the traditional ways of hunting and needed to be retaught when they returned. He taught many of his nephews traditional hunting methods and said it was his job to give back, just as his elders had taught him how to hunt whale and inland animals. He observed changes in sea ice and climate in his generation and shared with the world what he saw. Wesley also served on the North Slope Borough's Inupiat History, Language and Culture Commission. He often stressed the importance of language, and his dream was an immersion camp in which only Inupiat was spoke. He reminded the youth about the hardships their ancestors experienced and that the whole community looked out for each other. And if you took care of animals and the land, they would take care of you. In 2018, he served as the keynote speaker at the Elders and Youth Conference in Anchorage, during which he delivered a strong message on respect. He said it is all about respect. It is about respect for self and for one other, as well as a respect for the animals, which he said have spirits just like we do. In fact, when he took his daughter hunting, he taught her where to put a hole behind the neck to release the spirit of the caribou. Wesley was also known for his Alaska Native rights activism. He participated in the 1961 Barrow Duck Sit-in, protesting the Federal Government's regulation of Native hunting rights, and this protest, among others, led to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. A respected leader, he also helped establish the Alaska Federal of Natives. Elder Wesley's wisdom and kindness will be missed. He is survived and respected by his children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, friends, and his whole community.

2020-01-06

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Senate

CREC-2020-02-13-pt1-PgS1071-4

formal

single

homophobic

AMPHIBIOUS LANDING ON THE JAPANESE ISLAND OF IWO JIMA DURING WORLD WAR II AND THE RAISINGS OF THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES ON MOUNT SURIBACHI Mr. YOUNG (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Coons, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Paul, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tillis, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Moran, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. McSally, Mr. Manchin, Ms. Duckworth, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Romney, Mr. Burr, Mrs. Loeffler, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Jones, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Warren, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Udall, and Mr. Barrasso) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 502 Whereas, following the surprise attack by Japanese forces on December 7, 1941, at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, the United States formally declared war on the Imperial Government of Japan on December 8, 1941; Whereas, during the 4 years that followed the attack, the United States and allied forces fought a prolonged counterattack against Japanese advances across the Pacific region; Whereas the tactic of attacking, defeating, and controlling Japanese-held outposts through the use of amphibious assault landings against Japanese-held islands and territories (referred to in this preamble as ``island hopping'') became crucial to successfully countering Japanese advances throughout the Pacific region; Whereas the goal of island hopping was to secure airfields and supply bases-- (1) in order to launch aerial bombardment attacks against the mainland of Japan using the new Boeing B-29 Superfortress; and (2) in preparation for, and in anticipation of, a United States invasion of Japan; Whereas, by early 1945, the United States and allied forces bravely fought and advanced to the island of Iwo Jima, an 8- square-mile volcanic island with 3 strategic airfields, located between the Mariana Islands and Japan; Whereas Iwo Jima was-- (1) a strategic island with airfields to support bombers of the United States with fighter escorts; and (2) an essential base for emergency, refueling, and diversionary landings for B-29 bombers; Whereas, under the command of Japanese Lieutenant General Tadamichi Kuribayashi, Iwo Jima was a heavily fortified island with nearly 11 miles of underground and networked tunnels, rooms, bunkers, artillery emplacements, ammunition dumps, and pillboxes supporting more than 21,000 Japanese soldiers; Whereas, on February 19, 1945, under the leadership of United States Navy 5th Fleet Admiral Raymond A. Spruance, United States Marine Corps V Amphibious Corps Major General Harry Schmidt, 3rd Division Major General Graves B. Erskine, 4th Division Major General Clifton Cates, and 5th Division Major General Keller E. Rockey, the United States launched an amphibious landing and assault on Iwo Jima that culminated with the engagement of more than 70,000 members of the United States Marine Corps, buttressed by thousands of members of the United States Navy and the United States Army serving as assault, garrison, and support forces (referred to in this preamble as the ``Battle of Iwo Jima''); Whereas the members of the United States Marine Corps who fought in the Battle of Iwo Jima overcame numerous disadvantages in the 36-day battle that included treacherous terrain, unfavorable weather conditions, and heavy enemy fire from an embedded, determined, and fierce Japanese fighting force in places immortalized by members of the United States Marine Corps, including the ``Meat Grinder'' and ``Bloody Gorge''; Whereas, on February 23, 1945, only 5 days into the Battle of Iwo Jima, members of the United States Marine Corps ascended the highest point on the island, Mount Suribachi, and raised the flag of the United States 2 times, the second of which resulted in the iconic, Pulitzer Prize-winning image that-- (1) was captured on film by photographer Joe Rosenthal; (2) has become a recognized symbol of determination, perseverance, and struggle; and (3) has been memorialized as the United States Marine Corps War Memorial in Arlington, Virginia; Whereas the Battle of Iwo Jima, one of the bloodiest battles in the history of the United States Marine Corps, resulted in more than 26,000 casualties of the United States, more than 6,800 of whom were killed; Whereas most of the more than 20,000 estimated Japanese soldiers who fought in the Battle of Iwo Jima were killed, with only 1,083 Japanese soldiers surviving at the conclusion of the campaign; Whereas the Battle of Iwo Jima led to 22 members of the United States Marine Corps and 5 members of the United States Navy receiving the Medal of Honor, representing-- (1) the most members of the United States Marine Corps ever to receive the highest military decoration in the United States for a single battle; and (2) more than \1/4\ of all members of the United States Marine Corps to receive the decoration during World War II; Whereas the secured airfields on Iwo Jima became emergency landing locations for 2,400 B-29 Bombers, saving the lives of an estimated 24,000 flight crewmen; Whereas, 160 days after the end and victory of the pivotal Battle of Iwo Jima, the United States received the unconditional surrender of Japan on September 2, 1945; Whereas the world owes a debt of gratitude to the members of the United States Marine Corps who selflessly led the fight for the strategic island of Iwo Jima in the middle of the Pacific theater; and Whereas, on March 28, 2020, the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima will be marked by commemorative events on the island of Iwo Jima organized by the people of the United States and Japan: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes the 75th anniversary of the amphibious landing on the Japanese island of Iwo Jima that began on February 19, 1945 and ended on March 26, 1945; (2) commemorates the iconic and historic raisings of the flag of the United States on Mount Suribachi that occurred on February 23, 1945; (3) honors the marines, sailors, soldiers, army air crew, and coast guardsmen who fought bravely on Iwo Jima, including the thousands of Japanese soldiers who defended the island; (4) remembers and venerates the service members who gave their last full measure of devotion on the battlefield; (5) recognizes the Allied victory in the Battle of Iwo Jima, which-- (A) was led by the United States Marine Corps; and (B) made the defeat of the Empire of Japan in World War II possible; (6) affirms the immortal words of Admiral Chester Nimitz, who stated that ``uncommon valor was a common virtue'' among the service members of the United States who fought on Iwo Jima; (7) reaffirms the bonds of friendship between the United States and Japan; (8) encourages the people of the United States to honor the veterans of the Battle of Iwo Jima with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities; and (9) honors the service and sacrifice of the men and women who serve the United States today, carrying on the proud tradition of the individuals who came before them.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-02-13-pt1-PgS1079-2

formal

Federal Reserve

antisemitic

Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: 3827. A letter from the Chair, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the Board's semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress, pursuant to Public Law 106-569; to the Committee on Financial Services. 3828. A letter from the Program Specialist, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Other Real Estate Owned and Technical Amendments; Correction [Docket ID: OCC-2019-0004] (RIN: 1557-AE50) received February 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 Financial Services. 3829. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, transmitting the Office's report on discretionary appropriations legislation within seven calendar days of enactment, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 901(a)(7)(B); Public Law 99- 177, Sec. 251(a)(7)(B) (as amended by Public Law 114-113, Sec. 1003); (129 Stat. 3035); to the Committee on the Budget. 3830. A letter from the Regulations Coordinator, Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's Major interim final rule -- Control of Communicable Diseases; Foreign Quarantine [CDC Docket No.: CDC-2020-0013] (RIN: 0920-AA75) received February 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. 3831. A letter from the Director, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense, transmitting the Agency's FY 2019 annual report of Military Assistance, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2415(a); Public Law 87-195, Sec. 655 (as amended by Public Law 104-164, Sec. 148); (110 Stat. 1435); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 3832. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Lebanon that was declared in Executive Order 13441 of August 1, 2007, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257) and 50 U.S.C. 1703(c); Public Law 95-223, Sec 204(c); (91 Stat. 1627); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 3833. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Ukraine that was declared in Executive Order 13660 of March 6, 2014, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257) and 50 U.S.C. 1703(c); Public Law 95-223, Sec 204(c); (91 Stat. 1627); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 3834. A letter from the Director, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense, transmitting Transmittal No. 20-0D, pursuant to the reporting requirements of Section 36(b)(5)(C) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 3835. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Passports; Clarification of Previous Rule Relating to Treatment of Serious Tax Debt [Public Notice: 10921] (RIN: 1400-AE90) received February 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 Foreign Affairs. 3836. A letter from the Director, Regulations and Disclosure Law Division, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Import Restrictions Imposed on Archaeological and Ethnological Material From Ecuador [CBP Dec. 20-03] (RIN: 1515-AE52) received February 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 Ways and Means.

2020-01-06

Unknown

House

CREC-2020-02-14-pt1-PgH1160-2

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: 3837. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, transmitting a letter reporting violations of the Antideficiency Act by the Department of Agriculture, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1351; Public Law 97-258; (96 Stat. 926) and 31 U.S.C. 1517(b); Public Law 110-161, Sec. 1517(b); (121 Stat. 2285); to the Committee on Appropriations. 3838. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of The President, transmitting the Office's Sequestration Preview Report to the President and Congress for Fiscal Year 2021, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 904(e); Public Law 99-177, Sec. 254(e) (as amended Public Law 112-25, Sec. 103); (125 Stat. 246); to the Committee on Appropriations. 3839. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, transmitting the Office's Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions for Fiscal Year 2021, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 901a(9); Public Law 99-177, Sec. 251A (as added Public Law 112-25, Sec. 302(a)); (125 Stat. 256); to the Committee on Appropriations. 3840. A letter from the Under Secretary, Acquisition and Sustainment, Department of Defense, transmitting the September 2019 report on the Improved Turbine Engine Program, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2432(b)(1); Public Law 97-252, Sec. 1107(a)(1); (96 Stat. 740); to the Committee on Armed Services. 3841. A letter from the President and Chairman, Export- Import Bank of the United States, transmitting the Bank's FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan and FY 2019 Annual Performance Report to Congress, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 635g(a); July 31, 1945, ch. 341, Sec. 8(a) (as amended by Public Law 93-646, Sec. 10) (88 Stat. 2336) and 31 U.S.C. 1115(b); Public Law 111-352, Sec. 3; (124 Stat. 3867); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. 3842. A letter from the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, transmitting the Administration's FY 2019 FISMA Report; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. 3843. A letter from the Director, Office of Government Ethics, transmitting the Office's Congressional Justification, Annual Performance Plan, and Annual Performance Report, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1115(b); Public Law 111-352, Sec. 3; (124 Stat. 3867); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. 3844. A letter from the Chairman, United States International Trade Commission, transmitting the Commission's combined Annual Performance Plan for FY 2020-21 and Annual Performance Report for FY 2019, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1115(b); Public Law 111-352, Sec. 3; (124 Stat. 3867) and 5 U.S.C. 306(a); Public Law 103-62, Sec. 3 (as amended by Public Law 111-352, Sec. 2); (124 Stat. 3866) and 31 U.S.C. 1115(b); Public Law 111-352, section 3; (124 Stat. 3867); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. 3845. A letter from the Architect of the Capitol, transmitting the semiannual report of disbursements for the operations of the Architect of the Capitol for the period of July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 1868a(a); Public Law 113-76, div. I, title I, Sec. 1301(a); (128 Stat. 428) (H. Doc. No. 116--100); to the Committee on House Administration and ordered to be printed. 3846. A letter from the Chairman, U.S. International Trade Commission, transmitting the Commission's report on Investigation No. TA-201-075(Monitoring): Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Partially or Fully Assembled Into Other Products: Monitoring Developments in the Domestic Industry, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2254(a)(2); Public Law 100-418, Sec. 1401(a); (102 Stat. 1238); to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3847. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the FY 2019 report of the Federal Coordinated Health Care Office, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1315b(e); Public Law 111-148, Sec. 2602(e); (124 Stat. 316); jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. 3848. A letter from the Board Members, Railroad Retirement Board, transmitting the Congressional Justification of Budget Estimates for Fiscal Year 2021 including the Performance Plan for the year, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1115(b); Public Law 111- 352, Sec. 3; (124 Stat. 3867) and 45 U.S.C. 231f(f); Aug. 29, 1935, ch. 812, Sec. 7(f) (as amended by Public Law 93-445, Sec. 416); (97 Stat. 436); jointly to the Committees on Appropriations, Ways and Means, and Transportation and Infrastructure.

2020-01-06

Unknown

House

CREC-2020-02-18-pt1-PgH1163-7

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi: Committee on Homeland Security. H.R. 1140. A bill to enhance the security operations of the Transportation Security Administration and stability of the transportation security workforce by applying the personnel system under title 5, United States Code, to employees of the Transportation Security Administration who provide screening of all passengers and property, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 116-398, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Ms. WATERS: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 3701. A bill to establish a statute of limitations for certain actions of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 116-399). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. NEAL: Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 4742. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a tax on nicotine used in vaping, etc; with an amendment (Rept. 116- 400). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. NEAL: Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 4716. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a safe harbor for high deductible health plans without a deductible for certain inhalers; with an amendment (Rept. 116-401). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. PALLONE: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 2339. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the sale and marketing of tobacco products, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 116-402). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York: Committee on Oversight and Reform. H.R. 745. A bill to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to provide for reform in the operations of the Office of Government Ethics, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 116-403, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. discharge of committee Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIII, the Committee on the Judiciary discharged from further consideration. H.R. 745 referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIII, the Committee on Oversight and Reform discharged from further consideration. H.R. 1140 referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

2020-01-06

Unknown

House

CREC-2020-02-21-pt1-PgH1168

formal

welfare

racist

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wicker). Pursuant to the order of the Senate of January 24, 1901, as modified by the order of February 4, 2020, the junior Senator from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin, will now read Washington's Farewell Address. Ms. BALDWIN, at the rostrum, read the Farewell Address as follows:To the people of the United States: Friends and Fellow-Citizens: The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made. I beg you at the same time to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country--and that, in withdrawing the tender of service which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both. The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea. I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country you will not disapprove my determination to retire. The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself, and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiarvalue to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it. In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me, still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise and as an instructive example in our annals that, under circumstances in which the passions agitated in every direction were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these states, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it. Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion. Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment. The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts. For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts--of common dangers, sufferings, and successes. But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the Union of the whole. The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South in the same intercourse, benefitting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort--and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious. While then every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value! they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same government, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence likewise they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is, that your Union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other. These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reasonto distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands. In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations--northern and southern--Atlantic and western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations. They tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head. They have seen in the negotiation by the executive--and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate--of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the general government and in the Atlantic states unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi. They have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens? To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay by the adoption of a Constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate Union and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations under whatever plausible character with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. Towards the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions, that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country, that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypotheses and opinion exposes to perpetual change from the endless variety of hypotheses and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable; liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is indeed little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property. I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true--and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutarypurpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume. It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield. Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened. As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties) ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue which the public exigencies may at any time dictate. Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all; religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices? In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim. So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must beimpartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest guided by justice shall counsel. Why forgo the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rival-ship, interest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world--so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy)--I repeat it therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed--in order to give to trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them--conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another--that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character--that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish--that they will control the usual current of the passions or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good, that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism--this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated. How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them. In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the 22d of April 1793 is the index to my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it. After deliberate examination with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take--and was bound in duty and interest to take--a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it with moderation, perseverence, and firmness. The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all. The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations. The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes. Though in reviewing the incidents of my administration I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest. Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat, in which I promise myself to realize without alloy the sweet enjoyment of partaking in the midst of my fellow citizens the benign influence of good laws under a free government--the ever favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors and dangers. Geo. Washington. United States, 19th September 1796.

2020-01-06

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wicker)

Senate

CREC-2020-02-24-pt1-PgS1091-6

formal

terrorists

Islamophobic

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, first, this afternoon I would like to recognize the career and public service of retired VADM Joseph Maguire, whosetenure as Acting Director of National Intelligence and Director of National Counterterrorism Center concluded last week. Joe Maguire spent 36 years serving our Nation as a U.S. Navy special operator. His leadership record included SEAL Team 2 and the U.S. Navy Special Warfare Command, where he guided some of our Nation's most sensitive military operations. Admiral Maguire retired from the Navy in 2010, but it was not long before public service came calling again. In 2018, the President asked him to direct the NCTC. The Senate confirmed him on a voice vote. He took on an even more challenging assignment last summer when he agreed to follow our former colleague Senator Dan Coats and act in the role of the DNI. Our Nation asks our intelligence community to fulfill an enormous array of sensitive missions. These men and women work day and night to protect the homeland from terrorists. They fight nuclear proliferation. They keep watch on dangerous adversaries, like Russia and China. They guard against what hostile intelligence services are doing in our Nation, and they work to protect American elections from foreign interference that seeks to sow division and chaos and reduce public confidence in our democracy. Recent reports suggest that adversaries, including Russia, are likely continuing efforts aimed at dividing Americans, sowing chaos in our politics, and undermining confidence in our elections. Fortunately, in stark contrast to the failures of the Obama administration in 2016, the Trump administration, once again, appears to be doing the right thing--in this case, by promptly providing a specific counterintelligence briefing to a Democratic Presidential candidate in question. This is just the latest example of the vigilance and the action we have seen from this administration on this crucial issue. In parallel with hundreds of millions that Congress has appropriated in new election security assistance for State and local authorities, the administration has taken major proactive steps. The Treasury Department has sanctioned numerous Russian entities involved in the 2016 interference. The Department of Homeland Security has worked closely with States, local jurisdictions, and the private sector to bolster our cyber security defenses. The Obama administration's naive and belated efforts failed to deter or to defend against Russian interference in 2016 and failed to provide substantive counterintelligence briefings to the Trump and Clinton campaigns. By contrast, the Trump administration has been vigilant and appears to be providing timely warnings to candidates affected by foreign intelligence activities. This is critically important work, and it wouldn't be possible without the hard work of our intelligence community to identify the hostile activities. This is just one of many critical tasks the intelligence community performs for our country. Our country is safer and stronger when they have the tools and the resources they need and leadership that understands that political bias must have no quarter in intelligence work and that all Americans' rights need protecting.

2020-01-06

Mr. McCONNELL

Senate

CREC-2020-02-24-pt1-PgS1095-2

formal

the Fed

antisemitic

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now on another matter, this week the Senate will continue to fulfill both of our constitutional charges: We will vote on important legislation, and we will provide advice and consent on a number of Presidential nominations. We will begin with two nominations to the Federal bench in U.S. territories. Judge Robert Molloy, who currently sits on the U.S. Virgin Islands Superior Court, is nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Virgin Islands for a term of 10 years. Judge Silvia Carreno-Coll currently serves as a U.S. magistrate judge for the District of Puerto Rico and has been nominated to be a U.S. district judge. Both nominations were reported out of committee on a voice vote. This week we will also consider Katharine MacGregor, the President's nominee to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior, and Travis Greaves, a nominee to serve as judge on the U.S. Tax Court for a term of 15 years. But first, following the first two nominations, the Senate will turn to important legislation put forward by Senators Graham and Sasse to expand protections for innocent lives. Senator Graham's Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would finally remove the United States from a list of only seven nations, including China and North Korea, that permit elective abortion after 20 weeks. It would bring our Nation's regard for the unborn off this sad and radical fringe and bring us more in line with the global mainstream. I do not believe this legislation should be controversial, but even less controversial should be Senator Sasse's Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. It would simply ensure that infants who survive abortion attempts receive the same level of professional care as any other children. My colleagues and I will have more to say on this subject in the days ahead, but I will urge all Senators to join me in supporting these nominees and these pieces of legislation when we vote on them this week. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

2020-01-06

Mr. McCONNELL

Senate

CREC-2020-02-24-pt1-PgS1096

formal

single

homophobic

E-Cigarettes Madam President, I traveled to a couple of other Texas cities, where I was able to talk to people about the rise of e-cigarette use, particularly among teens. In Corpus Christi along the gulf coast and in Odessa in deep West Texas, I met with a range of local officials, health professionals, and community advocates about the impact of teen vaping. One study found that in the Permian Basin, in the middle of the Odessa area, about half of high school students used e-cigarettes and 25 percent of them had vaped in the past month. This study found that in schools, the average age of first-time e-cigarette users is just 13 years old. E-cigarettes--even the closed systems, where you can't add other ingredients, like the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, THC--even in the closed systems that are designed to deliver only nicotine, nicotine is an addictive drug. When children get access to these addictive drugs, it may well end up being a gateway to other use--whether it is tobacco or other drug use--later in life. It certainly encourages them to remain a user of this nicotine delivery device. I have introduced legislation called the Preventing Online Sales of E-Cigarettes to Children Act, which would make it difficult for children to get their hands on these devices, particularly when they buy them over the internet. All it does is apply the same safeguards already in place for online purchases of tobacco--it applies that to e-cigarettes. Customers would have to verify their age at the time of delivery--a practice which, shockingly, does not currently exist. A recent survey published in the American Journal of Health Promotion found that 32 percent of underage e-cigarette users reported purchasing products online, making online sales the single largest source of purchases for underage users. We recently raised the age from 18 to 21 to get access to these e-cigarettes, but still, as these studiesindicate, use of e-cigarettes and vaping devices is epidemic in our middle schools and our high schools. It is dangerous to the physical and mental health of our children. That is something you would think we would be able to address. If we are going to turn the tide on e-cigarettes and prevent more young people from facing their deadly health consequences, passage of this legislation is a necessary first step.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-02-24-pt1-PgS1099-3

formal

safeguard

transphobic

Coronavirus Madam President, we are returning to Washington, DC, from time spent in our States. I was happy, for one, to get time to spend in Texas with constituents. I traveled the State, as I am sure many of us did, traveling from Midland, to Ft. Worth, to Corpus Christi, and a number of spots in between. Texas is a pretty big place, so it takes a little time to move around, but it is really great to be able to hear from the folks I represent--the folks we all represent--about what they care about the most. One of the most interesting things to me is how little they talk about what is talked about inside the bubble here known as Washington, DC. In San Antonio, for example, I met with State and local officials to discuss their growing concerns over coronavirus. Lackland Air Force Base is one of the designated locations where Americans evacuated from overseas with suspected exposure to coronavirus are being held under the first Federal quarantine in more than 50 years. Folks were naturally concerned about the fact that these evacuees were scheduled to be transported to local civilian hospitals for testing rather than remaining on the base where they are quarantined. In our meeting, we were able to speak with not only the mayor and two council persons, but we were able to speak with officials from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Defense Department about these concerns, and I am glad we were able to come up with a better solution. The Department of Health and Human Services has now updated their protocol to ensure that testing for coronavirus will be conducted at Joint Base Lackland's quarantine housing, so evacuees will not be sent to hospitals in the area for their tests. I appreciate my colleagues at the city who have been working overtime to keep their residents there safe. I am grateful to the administration for addressing our concerns and being responsive to those questions. On the very day we met, 90 evacuees were released from quarantine, and I am happy they are finally headed home. I am sure I am not as happy as they are after being quarantined. We owe a huge thank-you to the medical professionals who have and will continue to care for those in quarantine and to the Bexar County and San Antonio officials who are working to safeguard public health.

2020-01-06

Unknown

Senate

CREC-2020-02-24-pt1-PgS1099

formal

based

white supremacist

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to urge passage of bipartisan, compassionate legislation that I introduced on April 2 of last year with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Baldwin, to reauthorize the Lifespan Respite Care Program. This program provides respite services to family members who are caring for loved ones with special needs. Oftentimes, they are taking care of a spouse with Alzheimer's disease or a child with several disabilities, and it is a 24/7 job. They need a break, they need help, and that is what respite service is all about. This is not a new program. It has long been a bipartisan priority, and our bill is widely supported by a total of 100 leading caregiver and respite organizations across the country. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee reported our bill unanimously on October 31 of last year, and we have been working since then to secure its passage by the full Senate. It cleared the Republican side of the aisle on December 17, but the bill has been stalled on the other side of the aisle due to an unknown objection by an anonymous Senator, making it very difficult to resolve. If you don't know who has lodged the objection and you don't know what the concern is, it becomes impossible to resolve it. Thankfully, I am pleased to report that the objection has now been lifted, and we are poised to pass this bill that will help our seniors caring for a spouse with Alzheimer's or another disease, as well as parents caring for children with disabilities. Our bill would authorize $10 million annually for the Lifespan Respite Care Program over the next 5 years to assist States in establishing or enhancing statewide lifespan respite programs. Since the program's enactment 15years ago, 37 States plus the District of Columbia have received grants to increase the availability and quality of respite services. Failing to reauthorize this program would put this funding in jeopardy. While respite care is the No. 1 service caregivers say they need, 85 percent of our Nation's caregivers have not received any respite services at all. Respite care has been shown to help sustain family caregivers' health and well-being and avoid and delay out-of-home placement for those for whom they are caring. From families caring for children with disabilities to those caring for older adults, the need for respite care today continues to grow. Our bipartisan legislation would help the 45 million caregivers in our country who provide an estimated $470 billion in uncompensated care each year. As a Senator representing the State with the oldest median age in our Nation and as chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, the well-being of our seniors and their caregivers is among my top priorities. The need for respite care continues to outpace available resources. This program is an attempt to provide a modest amount of Federal grant money toward this goal. Along with Senator Baldwin, this bipartisan bill is cosponsored by Senators Murray, Reed, and Sinema. More than 50 national stakeholders have signed a letter urging immediate passage of the bill, including the ARCH National Respite Coalition, the AARP, Easterseals, The Arc, and the Elizabeth Dole Foundation. In addition, State-based organizations representing constituents across the country have also signed this letter. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

2020-01-06

Ms. COLLINS

Senate

CREC-2020-02-24-pt1-PgS1103-2

formal

terrorist

Islamophobic

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to elaborate on my statement of February 13 in support of S. J. Res. 68. This resolution puts the Senate on record with regard to war powers and Iran in the wake of the U.S. strike against Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Commander Qasem Soleimani on January 2, 2020. The resolution, which directs the President to terminate the use of U.S. Armed Forces for hostilities against Iran, passed the Senate with a strong bipartisan majority. This bipartisan consensus is a testament to Senator Kaine's leadership, and I commend him for that. It is also a reflection of the Senate's deep concern about the risk of a broader military conflict between the United States and Iran. There is no dispute that Soleimani was an enemy of the United States, but this extraordinary killing of a high-ranking foreign military official nearly brought us to the brink of war. The strike would be justified if it had been necessary to defend against an imminent attack against the United States, but the administration has failed to provide any persuasive evidence of such a threat. Instead, the administration appears to be laying the foundation for further military action against Iran, without coming to Congress. Let's be clear: It is not just that there is no existing authorization. To the extent that the administration continues to confront Iran militarily, it is doing so in direct opposition to Congress--both the House and Senate have now passed bipartisan resolutions directing the President to terminate hostilities with Iran--and without the support of the American people. With that in mind, I would like to address some of the features of S.J. Res. 68, as well as the administration's legal rationale for the Soleimani strike and why that rationale is so problematic. Before doing so, I want to take a step back and make sure that everyone understands the real world impact. Today, over 100 service men and women are suffering from traumatic brain injuries incurred during an Iranian retaliatory attack over Soleimani. My heart goes out to them and their families. Thankfully there were no American casualties, but we will not be so lucky if President Trump stumbles into a broader conflict with Iran. So when I raise the alarm over this administration's actions, it is not academic. It is about our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and brothers and sisters serving in harm's way. It is about honoring their service with more than just words. It is about ensuring that they are not needlessly put in danger by an arrogant and lawless administration that refuses to recognize any limitation on its ability to drag our country into war. S.J. Res. 68 has a number of important features. I will highlight three of them briefly. First, this resolution established a new precedent in the Senate. The War Powers Resolution, as amended, provides for privileged consideration of joint resolutions that direct the President, in broad terms, to stop the use of U.S. forces in specified hostilities. The only such privileged resolutions in the Senate prior to S.J. Res. 68 mandated that the President ``remove'' U.S. forces from hostilities. The operative language of S.J. Res. 68 uses a variation of that language. Instead of ``remove,'' it directs the President to ``terminate'' the use of U.S. forces for hostilities. In a failed bid to prevent privileged consideration of S.J. Res. 68, the Republican majority asserted, in effect, that ``remove from hostilities'' was a term of art and that privilege was available only for resolutions that used that specific phrase. That rigid approach is inconsistent with the overarching purpose of the War Powers Resolution--for Congress to reconfirm and reassert its constitutional powers over the use of force--and contrary to the statutory framework and legislative history of the War Powers Resolution. The statute does not prescribe specific language, and the legislative record is full of examples of the interchangeable use of ``remove,'' ``terminate,'' and multiple other synonymous terms. Ultimately, the Senate moved forward with consideration of S.J. Res 68 on a privileged and expedited basis. This precedent is noteworthy for two reasons: First, it clarifies that there are no magic words required for privilege. This means that a resolution that requires the President to stop the use of U.S. Armed Forces in hostilities will not be deprived of expedited consideration in the Senate over semantics. Second, it provides a degree of flexibility for Senators who seek to stop such hostilities. For example, ``terminate'' or other synonyms may be more appropriate than ``remove'' for certain situations, like cyber operations, where implying a need for or requiring the physical removal of forces may not be practicable or desirable. Second, S. J. Res. 68 includes a rule of construction stating that it does not prevent the United States from defending itself against imminent attack. This is a critical feature. While we cannot abide by this President or any President usurping Congress' role and responsibility to authorize the use of force, the United States always has the right to defend itself against an ongoing or imminent attack. In tandem with this rule of construction, the Senate adopted an amendment offered by Senator Risch that added the following finding: ``The President has a constitutional responsibility to take actions to defend the United States, its territories, possessions, citizens, service members, and diplomats from attack.'' The responsibility to ``take actions'' in defense of the United States and our people and interests is a core function of the Presidency. This responsibility includes the full range of resources available to the executive branch--diplomacy, law enforcement, intelligence, military force, and beyond. Each type of action is subject to different legal and constitutional considerations, and the President never has a blank check. He or she is obligated to act consistently with the law and the Constitution at all times, even when in defense of the country. When using military force in self-defense, this means his or her actions must be in response to an attack or imminent attack unless Congress has explicitly authorized some other action. Against this backdrop, the Risch amendment is consistent with both the rule of construction in S.J. Res. 68 and the constitutional balance between Congress and the executive branch over the use of force. For these reasons, I voted in favor of the Risch amendment and am not surprised it passed overwhelmingly. While Senate passage of S. J. Res. 68 is a major step against an unnecessary and unauthorized war with Iran, I am concerned that the administration may not heed the message. At minimum, its legal rationale for the Soleimani strike suggests that it is attempting to lay the foundation for further military action against Iran. The administration has publicly asserted three legal bases for the Soleimani strike, but none of them add up. First, let me address the 2002 Iraq authorization to use military force, AUMF, a law that this administration has distorted beyond recognition. The administration has stated that the 2002 AUMF is a valid legal basis for the Soleimani strike because Soleimani was a threat ``emanating from Iraq.'' I am sorry to say that does not pass the laugh test. Congress passed the 2002 AUMF for a single purpose--to address the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. Nothing about the law, its text, or its legislative history suggests that it ever authorize or was intended to authorize the use of force against Iran. I know because I was there. I debated the AUMF, and I voted against it. But even the most staunch supporters would never have claimed that the authorization to use force against Saddam Hussein in 2002 extended to the killing of a senior Iranian commander 18 years later. The administration also cites article II of the Constitution as a legal basis for the Soleimani strike. Article II would be available to the extent the strike was necessary to defend against an imminent attack; however, as I noted earlier, nearly 2 months have passed, and Congress and the American people are still waiting for proof--proof that such an attack was, in fact, imminent and, if so, that killing Soleimani was required to prevent the attack. Perhaps not surprisingly, given the lack of supporting evidence, the administration does not limit its article II claim to self-defense. Like other recent administrations, it asserts that the Constitution empowers the President to use military force ``to protect important national interests.'' But what kind of legal standard is this? At best, ``protecting important national interests'' sets an incredibly low bar for the most consequential of actions. At worst, it is a self-serving power grab that the President can use to justify military action anywhere in the world without congressional authorization. We should not be surprised--this ``standard'' was concocted by and for the executive branch to maximize the President's ability to use military force without congressional authorization. It does not reflect a neutral analysis of the separation of power, it has not been tested in the courts, and it has not been approved by Congress. Just a few weeks ago, in this very Chamber, we listened as the President's defense lawyers argued during the impeachment trial that steps taken in support of the President's reelection are inherently in the national interest. That was a shocking and frightening claim in the impeachment context. But now consider it in the context of sending the men and women of our Armed Forces into harm's way. Surely the Constitution does not authorize the President to use force in support of his or her reelection. Surely, it does not. Then again, this administration has been unable or unwilling to identify any limits on its purported article II authority, any instance in which it would concede that it needs Congress to authorize the use of force. Finally, I refer you to Secretary Pompeo's January 17, 2020, appearance on the Hugh Hewitt radio show. While on air, Secretary Pompeo insinuated that the designation of the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization, FTO, served as a legal basis to target IRGC members, presumably including Soleimani. FTO designations are administrative actions taken pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act; they are clearly not congressional authorizations for the use of military force. Now, I was hoping that Secretary Pompeo himself or a State Department official on his behalf would issue a simple clarification and acknowledge what we all know: An FTO designation has no bearing on whether this or any administration can use military force, period. I have written the Secretary on this question, and I have posed the same question to the State Department's Acting Legal Adviser. We continue to await a response, and I must say that the delay does not leave me with much confidence that we will receive the right answer. As so clearly demonstrated by the flimsy legal rationale advanced in relation to the Soleimani strike, we cannot rely on this administration or any administration to guard Congress' prerogatives over war powers. I am hopeful that the Soleimani strike and the Senate debate over S.J. Res. 68 will serve as a wake-up call. I am hopeful that all of our colleagues in this Chamber and in the House will work to reassert Congress' role over the use of force. We owe it to the Constitution, we owe it to the American people, and we owe it to the men and women who fight and die on our behalf.

2020-01-06

Mr. MENENDEZ

Senate

CREC-2020-02-24-pt1-PgS1113-4

formal

single

homophobic

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to elaborate on my statement of February 13 in support of S. J. Res. 68. This resolution puts the Senate on record with regard to war powers and Iran in the wake of the U.S. strike against Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Commander Qasem Soleimani on January 2, 2020. The resolution, which directs the President to terminate the use of U.S. Armed Forces for hostilities against Iran, passed the Senate with a strong bipartisan majority. This bipartisan consensus is a testament to Senator Kaine's leadership, and I commend him for that. It is also a reflection of the Senate's deep concern about the risk of a broader military conflict between the United States and Iran. There is no dispute that Soleimani was an enemy of the United States, but this extraordinary killing of a high-ranking foreign military official nearly brought us to the brink of war. The strike would be justified if it had been necessary to defend against an imminent attack against the United States, but the administration has failed to provide any persuasive evidence of such a threat. Instead, the administration appears to be laying the foundation for further military action against Iran, without coming to Congress. Let's be clear: It is not just that there is no existing authorization. To the extent that the administration continues to confront Iran militarily, it is doing so in direct opposition to Congress--both the House and Senate have now passed bipartisan resolutions directing the President to terminate hostilities with Iran--and without the support of the American people. With that in mind, I would like to address some of the features of S.J. Res. 68, as well as the administration's legal rationale for the Soleimani strike and why that rationale is so problematic. Before doing so, I want to take a step back and make sure that everyone understands the real world impact. Today, over 100 service men and women are suffering from traumatic brain injuries incurred during an Iranian retaliatory attack over Soleimani. My heart goes out to them and their families. Thankfully there were no American casualties, but we will not be so lucky if President Trump stumbles into a broader conflict with Iran. So when I raise the alarm over this administration's actions, it is not academic. It is about our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and brothers and sisters serving in harm's way. It is about honoring their service with more than just words. It is about ensuring that they are not needlessly put in danger by an arrogant and lawless administration that refuses to recognize any limitation on its ability to drag our country into war. S.J. Res. 68 has a number of important features. I will highlight three of them briefly. First, this resolution established a new precedent in the Senate. The War Powers Resolution, as amended, provides for privileged consideration of joint resolutions that direct the President, in broad terms, to stop the use of U.S. forces in specified hostilities. The only such privileged resolutions in the Senate prior to S.J. Res. 68 mandated that the President ``remove'' U.S. forces from hostilities. The operative language of S.J. Res. 68 uses a variation of that language. Instead of ``remove,'' it directs the President to ``terminate'' the use of U.S. forces for hostilities. In a failed bid to prevent privileged consideration of S.J. Res. 68, the Republican majority asserted, in effect, that ``remove from hostilities'' was a term of art and that privilege was available only for resolutions that used that specific phrase. That rigid approach is inconsistent with the overarching purpose of the War Powers Resolution--for Congress to reconfirm and reassert its constitutional powers over the use of force--and contrary to the statutory framework and legislative history of the War Powers Resolution. The statute does not prescribe specific language, and the legislative record is full of examples of the interchangeable use of ``remove,'' ``terminate,'' and multiple other synonymous terms. Ultimately, the Senate moved forward with consideration of S.J. Res 68 on a privileged and expedited basis. This precedent is noteworthy for two reasons: First, it clarifies that there are no magic words required for privilege. This means that a resolution that requires the President to stop the use of U.S. Armed Forces in hostilities will not be deprived of expedited consideration in the Senate over semantics. Second, it provides a degree of flexibility for Senators who seek to stop such hostilities. For example, ``terminate'' or other synonyms may be more appropriate than ``remove'' for certain situations, like cyber operations, where implying a need for or requiring the physical removal of forces may not be practicable or desirable. Second, S. J. Res. 68 includes a rule of construction stating that it does not prevent the United States from defending itself against imminent attack. This is a critical feature. While we cannot abide by this President or any President usurping Congress' role and responsibility to authorize the use of force, the United States always has the right to defend itself against an ongoing or imminent attack. In tandem with this rule of construction, the Senate adopted an amendment offered by Senator Risch that added the following finding: ``The President has a constitutional responsibility to take actions to defend the United States, its territories, possessions, citizens, service members, and diplomats from attack.'' The responsibility to ``take actions'' in defense of the United States and our people and interests is a core function of the Presidency. This responsibility includes the full range of resources available to the executive branch--diplomacy, law enforcement, intelligence, military force, and beyond. Each type of action is subject to different legal and constitutional considerations, and the President never has a blank check. He or she is obligated to act consistently with the law and the Constitution at all times, even when in defense of the country. When using military force in self-defense, this means his or her actions must be in response to an attack or imminent attack unless Congress has explicitly authorized some other action. Against this backdrop, the Risch amendment is consistent with both the rule of construction in S.J. Res. 68 and the constitutional balance between Congress and the executive branch over the use of force. For these reasons, I voted in favor of the Risch amendment and am not surprised it passed overwhelmingly. While Senate passage of S. J. Res. 68 is a major step against an unnecessary and unauthorized war with Iran, I am concerned that the administration may not heed the message. At minimum, its legal rationale for the Soleimani strike suggests that it is attempting to lay the foundation for further military action against Iran. The administration has publicly asserted three legal bases for the Soleimani strike, but none of them add up. First, let me address the 2002 Iraq authorization to use military force, AUMF, a law that this administration has distorted beyond recognition. The administration has stated that the 2002 AUMF is a valid legal basis for the Soleimani strike because Soleimani was a threat ``emanating from Iraq.'' I am sorry to say that does not pass the laugh test. Congress passed the 2002 AUMF for a single purpose--to address the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. Nothing about the law, its text, or its legislative history suggests that it ever authorize or was intended to authorize the use of force against Iran. I know because I was there. I debated the AUMF, and I voted against it. But even the most staunch supporters would never have claimed that the authorization to use force against Saddam Hussein in 2002 extended to the killing of a senior Iranian commander 18 years later. The administration also cites article II of the Constitution as a legal basis for the Soleimani strike. Article II would be available to the extent the strike was necessary to defend against an imminent attack; however, as I noted earlier, nearly 2 months have passed, and Congress and the American people are still waiting for proof--proof that such an attack was, in fact, imminent and, if so, that killing Soleimani was required to prevent the attack. Perhaps not surprisingly, given the lack of supporting evidence, the administration does not limit its article II claim to self-defense. Like other recent administrations, it asserts that the Constitution empowers the President to use military force ``to protect important national interests.'' But what kind of legal standard is this? At best, ``protecting important national interests'' sets an incredibly low bar for the most consequential of actions. At worst, it is a self-serving power grab that the President can use to justify military action anywhere in the world without congressional authorization. We should not be surprised--this ``standard'' was concocted by and for the executive branch to maximize the President's ability to use military force without congressional authorization. It does not reflect a neutral analysis of the separation of power, it has not been tested in the courts, and it has not been approved by Congress. Just a few weeks ago, in this very Chamber, we listened as the President's defense lawyers argued during the impeachment trial that steps taken in support of the President's reelection are inherently in the national interest. That was a shocking and frightening claim in the impeachment context. But now consider it in the context of sending the men and women of our Armed Forces into harm's way. Surely the Constitution does not authorize the President to use force in support of his or her reelection. Surely, it does not. Then again, this administration has been unable or unwilling to identify any limits on its purported article II authority, any instance in which it would concede that it needs Congress to authorize the use of force. Finally, I refer you to Secretary Pompeo's January 17, 2020, appearance on the Hugh Hewitt radio show. While on air, Secretary Pompeo insinuated that the designation of the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization, FTO, served as a legal basis to target IRGC members, presumably including Soleimani. FTO designations are administrative actions taken pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act; they are clearly not congressional authorizations for the use of military force. Now, I was hoping that Secretary Pompeo himself or a State Department official on his behalf would issue a simple clarification and acknowledge what we all know: An FTO designation has no bearing on whether this or any administration can use military force, period. I have written the Secretary on this question, and I have posed the same question to the State Department's Acting Legal Adviser. We continue to await a response, and I must say that the delay does not leave me with much confidence that we will receive the right answer. As so clearly demonstrated by the flimsy legal rationale advanced in relation to the Soleimani strike, we cannot rely on this administration or any administration to guard Congress' prerogatives over war powers. I am hopeful that the Soleimani strike and the Senate debate over S.J. Res. 68 will serve as a wake-up call. I am hopeful that all of our colleagues in this Chamber and in the House will work to reassert Congress' role over the use of force. We owe it to the Constitution, we owe it to the American people, and we owe it to the men and women who fight and die on our behalf.

2020-01-06

Mr. MENENDEZ

Senate

CREC-2020-02-24-pt1-PgS1113-4

formal

physical removal

white supremacist

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to elaborate on my statement of February 13 in support of S. J. Res. 68. This resolution puts the Senate on record with regard to war powers and Iran in the wake of the U.S. strike against Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Commander Qasem Soleimani on January 2, 2020. The resolution, which directs the President to terminate the use of U.S. Armed Forces for hostilities against Iran, passed the Senate with a strong bipartisan majority. This bipartisan consensus is a testament to Senator Kaine's leadership, and I commend him for that. It is also a reflection of the Senate's deep concern about the risk of a broader military conflict between the United States and Iran. There is no dispute that Soleimani was an enemy of the United States, but this extraordinary killing of a high-ranking foreign military official nearly brought us to the brink of war. The strike would be justified if it had been necessary to defend against an imminent attack against the United States, but the administration has failed to provide any persuasive evidence of such a threat. Instead, the administration appears to be laying the foundation for further military action against Iran, without coming to Congress. Let's be clear: It is not just that there is no existing authorization. To the extent that the administration continues to confront Iran militarily, it is doing so in direct opposition to Congress--both the House and Senate have now passed bipartisan resolutions directing the President to terminate hostilities with Iran--and without the support of the American people. With that in mind, I would like to address some of the features of S.J. Res. 68, as well as the administration's legal rationale for the Soleimani strike and why that rationale is so problematic. Before doing so, I want to take a step back and make sure that everyone understands the real world impact. Today, over 100 service men and women are suffering from traumatic brain injuries incurred during an Iranian retaliatory attack over Soleimani. My heart goes out to them and their families. Thankfully there were no American casualties, but we will not be so lucky if President Trump stumbles into a broader conflict with Iran. So when I raise the alarm over this administration's actions, it is not academic. It is about our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and brothers and sisters serving in harm's way. It is about honoring their service with more than just words. It is about ensuring that they are not needlessly put in danger by an arrogant and lawless administration that refuses to recognize any limitation on its ability to drag our country into war. S.J. Res. 68 has a number of important features. I will highlight three of them briefly. First, this resolution established a new precedent in the Senate. The War Powers Resolution, as amended, provides for privileged consideration of joint resolutions that direct the President, in broad terms, to stop the use of U.S. forces in specified hostilities. The only such privileged resolutions in the Senate prior to S.J. Res. 68 mandated that the President ``remove'' U.S. forces from hostilities. The operative language of S.J. Res. 68 uses a variation of that language. Instead of ``remove,'' it directs the President to ``terminate'' the use of U.S. forces for hostilities. In a failed bid to prevent privileged consideration of S.J. Res. 68, the Republican majority asserted, in effect, that ``remove from hostilities'' was a term of art and that privilege was available only for resolutions that used that specific phrase. That rigid approach is inconsistent with the overarching purpose of the War Powers Resolution--for Congress to reconfirm and reassert its constitutional powers over the use of force--and contrary to the statutory framework and legislative history of the War Powers Resolution. The statute does not prescribe specific language, and the legislative record is full of examples of the interchangeable use of ``remove,'' ``terminate,'' and multiple other synonymous terms. Ultimately, the Senate moved forward with consideration of S.J. Res 68 on a privileged and expedited basis. This precedent is noteworthy for two reasons: First, it clarifies that there are no magic words required for privilege. This means that a resolution that requires the President to stop the use of U.S. Armed Forces in hostilities will not be deprived of expedited consideration in the Senate over semantics. Second, it provides a degree of flexibility for Senators who seek to stop such hostilities. For example, ``terminate'' or other synonyms may be more appropriate than ``remove'' for certain situations, like cyber operations, where implying a need for or requiring the physical removal of forces may not be practicable or desirable. Second, S. J. Res. 68 includes a rule of construction stating that it does not prevent the United States from defending itself against imminent attack. This is a critical feature. While we cannot abide by this President or any President usurping Congress' role and responsibility to authorize the use of force, the United States always has the right to defend itself against an ongoing or imminent attack. In tandem with this rule of construction, the Senate adopted an amendment offered by Senator Risch that added the following finding: ``The President has a constitutional responsibility to take actions to defend the United States, its territories, possessions, citizens, service members, and diplomats from attack.'' The responsibility to ``take actions'' in defense of the United States and our people and interests is a core function of the Presidency. This responsibility includes the full range of resources available to the executive branch--diplomacy, law enforcement, intelligence, military force, and beyond. Each type of action is subject to different legal and constitutional considerations, and the President never has a blank check. He or she is obligated to act consistently with the law and the Constitution at all times, even when in defense of the country. When using military force in self-defense, this means his or her actions must be in response to an attack or imminent attack unless Congress has explicitly authorized some other action. Against this backdrop, the Risch amendment is consistent with both the rule of construction in S.J. Res. 68 and the constitutional balance between Congress and the executive branch over the use of force. For these reasons, I voted in favor of the Risch amendment and am not surprised it passed overwhelmingly. While Senate passage of S. J. Res. 68 is a major step against an unnecessary and unauthorized war with Iran, I am concerned that the administration may not heed the message. At minimum, its legal rationale for the Soleimani strike suggests that it is attempting to lay the foundation for further military action against Iran. The administration has publicly asserted three legal bases for the Soleimani strike, but none of them add up. First, let me address the 2002 Iraq authorization to use military force, AUMF, a law that this administration has distorted beyond recognition. The administration has stated that the 2002 AUMF is a valid legal basis for the Soleimani strike because Soleimani was a threat ``emanating from Iraq.'' I am sorry to say that does not pass the laugh test. Congress passed the 2002 AUMF for a single purpose--to address the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. Nothing about the law, its text, or its legislative history suggests that it ever authorize or was intended to authorize the use of force against Iran. I know because I was there. I debated the AUMF, and I voted against it. But even the most staunch supporters would never have claimed that the authorization to use force against Saddam Hussein in 2002 extended to the killing of a senior Iranian commander 18 years later. The administration also cites article II of the Constitution as a legal basis for the Soleimani strike. Article II would be available to the extent the strike was necessary to defend against an imminent attack; however, as I noted earlier, nearly 2 months have passed, and Congress and the American people are still waiting for proof--proof that such an attack was, in fact, imminent and, if so, that killing Soleimani was required to prevent the attack. Perhaps not surprisingly, given the lack of supporting evidence, the administration does not limit its article II claim to self-defense. Like other recent administrations, it asserts that the Constitution empowers the President to use military force ``to protect important national interests.'' But what kind of legal standard is this? At best, ``protecting important national interests'' sets an incredibly low bar for the most consequential of actions. At worst, it is a self-serving power grab that the President can use to justify military action anywhere in the world without congressional authorization. We should not be surprised--this ``standard'' was concocted by and for the executive branch to maximize the President's ability to use military force without congressional authorization. It does not reflect a neutral analysis of the separation of power, it has not been tested in the courts, and it has not been approved by Congress. Just a few weeks ago, in this very Chamber, we listened as the President's defense lawyers argued during the impeachment trial that steps taken in support of the President's reelection are inherently in the national interest. That was a shocking and frightening claim in the impeachment context. But now consider it in the context of sending the men and women of our Armed Forces into harm's way. Surely the Constitution does not authorize the President to use force in support of his or her reelection. Surely, it does not. Then again, this administration has been unable or unwilling to identify any limits on its purported article II authority, any instance in which it would concede that it needs Congress to authorize the use of force. Finally, I refer you to Secretary Pompeo's January 17, 2020, appearance on the Hugh Hewitt radio show. While on air, Secretary Pompeo insinuated that the designation of the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization, FTO, served as a legal basis to target IRGC members, presumably including Soleimani. FTO designations are administrative actions taken pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act; they are clearly not congressional authorizations for the use of military force. Now, I was hoping that Secretary Pompeo himself or a State Department official on his behalf would issue a simple clarification and acknowledge what we all know: An FTO designation has no bearing on whether this or any administration can use military force, period. I have written the Secretary on this question, and I have posed the same question to the State Department's Acting Legal Adviser. We continue to await a response, and I must say that the delay does not leave me with much confidence that we will receive the right answer. As so clearly demonstrated by the flimsy legal rationale advanced in relation to the Soleimani strike, we cannot rely on this administration or any administration to guard Congress' prerogatives over war powers. I am hopeful that the Soleimani strike and the Senate debate over S.J. Res. 68 will serve as a wake-up call. I am hopeful that all of our colleagues in this Chamber and in the House will work to reassert Congress' role over the use of force. We owe it to the Constitution, we owe it to the American people, and we owe it to the men and women who fight and die on our behalf.

2020-01-06

Mr. MENENDEZ

Senate

CREC-2020-02-24-pt1-PgS1113-4

formal

Reagan

white supremacist

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I rise to recognize 175 years of tourism, history, and hospitality that the French Lick Resort has brought to my home State of Indiana. In 1832, two Hoosier brothers, Thomas and Dr. William Bowles, purchased 1,500 acres of property near French Lick, IN. Part of the property's allure was the abundant mineral springs loaded with Epsom salt and sulfur. As a physician, Dr. Bowles became intrigued by the medicinal benefits that the mineral springs possessed, which famously turned into the Hoosier tonic Pluto Water. In 1845, the brothers welcomed their first guests after building a unique, three-story, wood-framed hotel. In 1901, a small group of investors, including former Indianapolis mayor Tom Taggart, bought the property from the Bowles brothers. Mayor Taggart's vision and political expertise aided in the development of the hotel and the expansion of the Monon Railroad from Chicago to the front entrance, encouraging more tourists to ``take to the waters.'' By 1905, the French Link Springs Hotel had become a grand destination, and its services were greatly sought after by all of Indiana society. Soon enough, it had gained worldwide recognition. With the hotel's stunning success, Donald James Ross, ``the Michelangelo of golf course design'' and a member of the World Golf Hall of Fame, was hired to build the French Lick Springs Golf Course. In 1924, the course hosted a PGA championship, attracting more national attention and further success. By 1931, the hotel became the unofficial headquarters of the national Democratic Party and became the site for the 1931 Democratic Governor's Conference. As a socialite destination, numerous notable guests visited the springs, including Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Ronald Reagan, John Barrymore, and Howard Hughes. Because of its heritage of tourism and hospitality, in 2003 the French Lick Springs Hotel was added to the National Register of Historic Places--a distinction of notable merit. In 2005, the French Lick Springs Hotel and its former competitor, the West Baden Springs Hotel, were purchased by the Cook Group, Inc., a family-owned company headquartered in Bloomington, IN. After a complete 1-year renovation, the French Lick Resort was born, continuing its legacy of attracting visitors from the around the world to Southern Indiana with a variety of events. The French Lick Resort and its world-class amenities have served millions of guests and has greatly added to the cultural history of the United States. On behalf of the State of Indiana, I wish the resort continued success for another 175 years and beyond.

2020-01-06

Mr. YOUNG

Senate

CREC-2020-02-24-pt1-PgS1115-2

formal

Chicago

racist

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I rise to recognize 175 years of tourism, history, and hospitality that the French Lick Resort has brought to my home State of Indiana. In 1832, two Hoosier brothers, Thomas and Dr. William Bowles, purchased 1,500 acres of property near French Lick, IN. Part of the property's allure was the abundant mineral springs loaded with Epsom salt and sulfur. As a physician, Dr. Bowles became intrigued by the medicinal benefits that the mineral springs possessed, which famously turned into the Hoosier tonic Pluto Water. In 1845, the brothers welcomed their first guests after building a unique, three-story, wood-framed hotel. In 1901, a small group of investors, including former Indianapolis mayor Tom Taggart, bought the property from the Bowles brothers. Mayor Taggart's vision and political expertise aided in the development of the hotel and the expansion of the Monon Railroad from Chicago to the front entrance, encouraging more tourists to ``take to the waters.'' By 1905, the French Link Springs Hotel had become a grand destination, and its services were greatly sought after by all of Indiana society. Soon enough, it had gained worldwide recognition. With the hotel's stunning success, Donald James Ross, ``the Michelangelo of golf course design'' and a member of the World Golf Hall of Fame, was hired to build the French Lick Springs Golf Course. In 1924, the course hosted a PGA championship, attracting more national attention and further success. By 1931, the hotel became the unofficial headquarters of the national Democratic Party and became the site for the 1931 Democratic Governor's Conference. As a socialite destination, numerous notable guests visited the springs, including Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Ronald Reagan, John Barrymore, and Howard Hughes. Because of its heritage of tourism and hospitality, in 2003 the French Lick Springs Hotel was added to the National Register of Historic Places--a distinction of notable merit. In 2005, the French Lick Springs Hotel and its former competitor, the West Baden Springs Hotel, were purchased by the Cook Group, Inc., a family-owned company headquartered in Bloomington, IN. After a complete 1-year renovation, the French Lick Resort was born, continuing its legacy of attracting visitors from the around the world to Southern Indiana with a variety of events. The French Lick Resort and its world-class amenities have served millions of guests and has greatly added to the cultural history of the United States. On behalf of the State of Indiana, I wish the resort continued success for another 175 years and beyond.

2020-01-06

Mr. YOUNG

Senate

CREC-2020-02-24-pt1-PgS1115-2

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-2020-02-25-pt1-PgH1174-5

formal

welfare

racist

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I would like to bring my colleagues up to date on a bipartisan bill to lower drug prices and also, at the same time, give an update on the pharmaceutical industry's opposition to this legislation. Beware the next time Big Pharma claims what we are trying to do to lower drug prices, in their words, ``undermines the free market.'' Just remember this. The pharmaceutical industry supported ObamaCare. Big Pharma doesn't want a free market. Take note that this industry opposes every proposal that would cost it money and supports every proposal that ensures another government revenue stream. That is exactly what ObamaCare did and that is what Medicare and Medicaid do now. Big Pharma has become so big and entitled that they have the gall to claim that limiting taxpayer subsidies is somehow socialism. ObamaCare has a stream that does that, as does Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, this is what ending corporate welfare and demanding accountability to taxpayers is all about. It seems to me that ending those subsidies would be a very conservative principle. The Grassley-Wyden prescription drug bill saves tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money and has no negative impact on pharmaceutical innovation. That is exactly what the CBO has said and that is why even the free-market, libertarian CATO Institute has endorsed this legislation. So I encourage my Republican colleagues to join me and Senator Wyden in that bipartisan effort. I yield the floor.

2020-01-06

Mr. GRASSLEY

Senate

CREC-2020-02-25-pt1-PgS1123-4

formal

identify as

transphobic

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, today, every Senator will be able to take a clear moral stand. We will have the chance to proceed to commonsense legislation that will move our Nation closer to the international mainstream with respect to defending innocent human life. There are only seven nations left in the entire world where an unborn child can be killed by elective abortion after 20 weeks, and the United States of America, unfortunately, is one of them. Set aside all of the far-left rhetoric that will greet Senator Graham's straightforward legislation and consider this simple fact: Do our Democratic colleagues really believe that what our country needs is a radical fringe position on elective abortion that we only share with China, North Korea, and four other countries in the entire world? The American people don't seem to think that is what we need. One recent survey found that 70 percent of all Americans believe that at a minimum--at a minimum--elective abortion should be limited to the first 3 months of pregnancy. That even includes about half of the respondents who self-identify as pro-choice. I hope this body will proceed to Senator Graham's Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act later today. I see no reason why at the very least our Democratic colleagues should vote against even proceeding to this legislation and having a debate. If there is a persuasive and principled case why America should remain on the radical international fringe on this subject, let us hear it. Let us have the debate. Few Americans agree with that radical position, but let's have the debate. If my Democratic colleagues block the Senate from even proceeding to consider this legislation here today, the message they will send will be chilling and clear. The radical demands of the far left will drown out common sense and the views of most Americans. The same goes for Senator Sasse's legislation, the Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act. Even if most Washington Democrats persist in their resistance to any commonsense protections for the unborn, surely, we mustbe able to agree that children who are born deserve protection. Surely, that much cannot be controversial. There is currently no Federal mandate that children who are delivered alive following an attempted abortion should receive medical care. There is no clear guarantee that every child born alive in the United States, whether they were intended to be or not, is entitled to the same life-giving medical attention. The Kentuckians whom I speak with cannot comprehend why this could be some hotly debated proposition. It almost defies belief that an entire political party can find cause to object to this basic protection for babies. Yet, today, we will see if our Democratic colleagues will even permit the Senate to proceed to this legislation. We will see whether even something this simple and this morally straightforward is a bridge too far for the far left. I would urge all of my colleagues: Let's advance these bills. Let's take these modest steps. Let's have the courage to say that the right to life must not exclude the most vulnerable among us.

2020-01-06

Mr. McCONNELL

Senate

CREC-2020-02-25-pt1-PgS1123-6