mesut/congress_speeches huggingface dataset:
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Mike Lee (Republican, UT) \u2014 2024-2-10

. There we have it. prgtoken Keep in mind, what you have just witnessed is my making a motion not to pass this into law, not even a motion to accept this as an amendment to the text. I just asked for consent to call up the amendment and make it pending so that it could be one of the items that we consider, one of the matters to be voted on, one of the matters that we would at least have the opportunity to consider and debate on; to, hopefully, ultimately, vote on; and to ultimately resolve. But I guess that was too much. prgtoken My friend and colleague from Illinois, in acting, undoubtedly, at the direction of the Senate ic leadership, made an objection even to calling that up and to making the amendment pending. This is what the rules of the Senate--more than two centuries old--have evolved to over time. This is what they are there to do. All of these odd terms like ``cloture'' and all of these procedural votes that we have are really designed to maximize the opportunity for each individual Senator to make sure that we have robust debate and to consider possible improvements to be made to a bill. prgtoken In the past, this wasn't such a difficult thing to do. I have been in the U.S. Senate for 13 years now. I arrived in 2011. Things weren't perfect by any means, but, at the time, it was fairly common, when we were considering a major piece of legislation--or even some relatively minor pieces of legislation and while that legislation was pending--to direct time set aside to debate the measure. It was quite commonplace. It was considered a routine practice that Members could go down to the floor, call up their amendment, and make their amendment pending. prgtoken It didn't guarantee its passage into law. It didn't guarantee that their amendment would be adopted into the legislative text for final consideration along with the underlying legislation. No, it just meant that it could be made pending so that Senators could have an opportunity to debate it, discuss it, and, ultimately, vote on it or maybe have it fall with a motion to table. prgtoken In the event it was a germane amendment, it could still be considered after cloture but not if it were not germane, meaning tightly connected to the bill. A good example of an, obviously, germane or a very likely germane amendment is one that strikes a provision that is in there. You could still get a vote on that after cloture was achieved, but nongermane amendments fall out after cloture. prgtoken It wasn't that big of a deal--meaning it didn't grind the Senate to a halt. In fact, the Senate operated for more than two centuries really, really well with this practice in place. prgtoken The Senate rules still allow for this. They still call for it. They still contemplate it. Our history and tradition are such that, until very recently, this was the norm. But you see it. The one time of the week--prior to just a few hours ago, prior to 1 o'clock today, or at least p
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Thom Tillis (Republican, NC) \u2014 2024-2-11

I rise today--in a few minutes, I am going to make a unanimous consent request for a bill that we refer to in our office as the American Deficit Relief Act; but before I do, I want to talk about why I am here. prgtoken We have a program--if you all remember, during the COVID era, we came to this floor multiple times on a bipartisan basis to do everything we could to try to keep the economy afloat while we were dealing with something that hadn't happened in this country in 100 years called a pandemic. We did some things that were good; we did a few things that were proven to be not so good. One of those things is referred to as the employer retention credit, also known as the employer retention tax credit or ERC. prgtoken It was under the CARES Act that we first implemented this bill, and at that time, we thought it was going to be about $55 billion reduced revenue to the government. I guess a different way of saying that is $55 billion remaining in the private sector. That was the concept behind so many of the things that we did in the COVID relief measures. prgtoken But then we had--in the Appropriations Act of 2021 and the American Rescue Plan, we have added even additional reductions, extensions, that resulted in $86 billion in revenue not coming back to the Federal Government. prgtoken Now the challenge that we have out there, like we have in a few of these programs, is we have had fraudsters run rampant--and probably none more than the employer retention tax credit. prgtoken They have cottage industries that are set up, calling businesses and saying: Hey, did you know that you are eligible for this? prgtoken Now, keep in mind when we were doing this program, these were businesses that were saying: My gosh, my business is about to go under. I don't know how to pay for my employees. We were trying to create programs to get the employers to hang on a little bit more. prgtoken Folks, I don't know if you have noticed, but we are past the pandemic. We are back open for business, and you have got companies that I think, arguably, are going to be proven guilty of fraud going out and asking people to take the tax credit now to the tunes of billions and billions of dollars. prgtoken So what do we do? prgtoken Well, we have got the employer retention tax credit where people are calling the IRS and making claims every single day. In the middle of the tax-filing season, they are dealing with a program that the IRS has said they want to get rid of. Fraud is out of control. We need to give them help. They have been asking for help. prgtoken Now why would this require a unanimous consent request, and why would I anticipate an objection today? prgtoken Just in fairness to Senator Wyden, my colleague on the Finance Committee--he is the chair; I am a relatively new member--there are some that want to use this program as a pay-for for a tax measure that we may talk about briefly later on. prgtoken I am OK with some
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Mitch McConnell (Republican, KY) \u2014 2024-2-11

from the earliest days of Vladimir Putin's escalation in Ukraine, America's closest allies and partners have been paying close attention. prgtoken From halfway around the world in the Indo-Pacific, our friends have made it clear that in the Ukrainian people's fight, they see their own future. prgtoken From Taiwan: Ukraine's survival is Taiwan's survival. prgtoken From Japan: Security in Europe and security in the Indo-Pacific are inseparable. prgtoken From Australia: It is absolutely in the interest of every free country that Putin's aggression fails. prgtoken But why? Why would peaceful people dare to get involved in others' fights? Why would leaders in Asia contribute billions of dollars in weapons to help Ukraine defeat Russian aggression? Why would the Prime Minister of Japan and the President of South Korea bother with long journeys to wartime Kyiv to express solidarity with Ukraine? Why not just pull up the drawbridge and keep quiet? Because our allies and partners are not naive. Because they know that unchecked aggression begets more. Because they know that victory for Russia means a green light for China. Because they know that neglecting Ukraine's fight to restore its sovereignty raises the costs of defending their own. prgtoken Our partners don't have the luxury of pretending that the world's most dangerous aggressors are someone else's problem, and neither do we. prgtoken So, today, it is no exaggeration to say that the eyes of the world are on the U.S. Senate. Our allies and partners are hoping that the indispensable nation--the leader of the free world--has the resolve to continue, and our adversaries are hoping for something quite different. Friends and foes alike pay close attention to what we say here and to how we vote because American leadership matters, and it is in question. prgtoken But let's be absolutely clear. The United States didn't give our ``greatest generation'' to the fight against Nazi Germany or commit half a century of focus and resources to defeating Soviet communism just out of a sense of altruism, and we aren't helping partners resist authoritarian aggression today out of some warm and fuzzy sense of charity. We haven't equipped the brave people of Ukraine, Israel, or Taiwan with lethal capabilities in order to win philanthropic accolades. We are not urgently strengthening defenses in the Indo- Pacific because it feels good. We don't wield American strength frivolously. We do it because it is in our own interest. We equip our friends to face our shared adversaries so we are less likely to have to spend American lives to defeat them. prgtoken For years, I have warned about the growing threats to America's national security and the growing coordination among our adversaries. prgtoken And, for years, I have worked to steer greater investments toward the hard power needed to deter them. prgtoken The Russian despot trying to conquer Ukra
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Mike Lee (Republican, UT) \u2014 2024-2-11

today I am asking my colleagues to support my motion to table the motion to recommit. prgtoken Now, even for seasoned Senators, this sounds like a lot of technical language, and it kind of is; so let's put it in perspective and explain what it actually means. prgtoken What is really going on here is that we have got the majority leader who has decided to obstruct an open and fair amendment process. prgtoken The motion to commit, which my motion aims to dispense with, is what Senator Schumer is using to block every Member of this body from accessing the amendment tree and offering up amendments as they please, making them pending, then having them dispensed with. prgtoken Instead, Leader Schumer is dictating which amendments are allowed to be voted on and which are not. To cut to the chase, essentially, all of them are not. And then he turns around and accuses s of being obstructionists for not wanting to play by his arbitrary rules. prgtoken Now, some have suggested that too many amendments have been filed, pointing out that among a handful of s, over 80 amendments were filed. This is not a reason to not allow any amendments. Not all of those amendments have sponsors who really want to make sure they want to get voted on. prgtoken In any event, the way the Senate works, the way it has long worked, the way it still worked to a significant degree when I first got here in 2011 was prgtoken that we work it out and we allow Members to offer up amendments. And when the body gets tired of it, social pressure, coupled with physical exhaustion, usually leads to a natural end to the process. prgtoken But every Member of this body has rights, has certain institutional prerogatives and prerogatives accorded under the rules, and the people of our States should be afforded representation allowing us to address the issues that we think are important. prgtoken Sadly, some of our colleagues are ready to sacrifice those prerogatives, those privileges and rights, under the rules and by Senate custom and tradition for a $100 billion foreign assistance package. prgtoken Now, it is important to remember that the Senate conference and our counterparts in the House GOP took a consensus opinion, a consensus position a couple months ago that supplemental spending should not move without language actually forcing the administration to secure the border. prgtoken It was language that was negotiated by a small number of Senators. It took a few months to get it negotiated. When we finally saw it, less than a week ago, last Sunday at 7 p.m it didn't achieve that goal. And for that reason, that proposal received only four votes on the vote on cloture of the motion to proceed. prgtoken Only one-third of Senators voted for cloture on the motion to proceed to the supplemental without the border provisions. And this doesn't make it our conference's position. Quite to the contrary,
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
John Thune (Republican, SD) \u2014 2024-2-11

. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott). prgtoken Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis) would have voted ``nay.''
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Eric Schmitt (Republican, MO) \u2014 2024-2-11

I rise today to lay out in somewhat abbreviated terms how exactly is responsible for the border crisis and what Americans would like to see. He alone, right now, can solve this issue. prgtoken I think there has been a lot of discussion about improving some of the laws that are currently on the books. prgtoken I think the work that was done to try to do that, in my view, didn't accomplish that, but nevertheless we are here on Super Bowl Sunday to consider something else. I don't mind working on Super Bowl Sunday; I grew up in a blue-collar family. Missourians work hard. Working on a Sunday is no big deal. prgtoken But you have to ask: What would keep us in today? What would Chuck Schumer push--which, by the way, if he is a poker player, it was like the worst tell of all time. Everybody knew he was going to try to jam us right before a 2-week break. I have only been here a year, and I knew that. It was coming. prgtoken But what could be so important when we have a $34 trillion debt, a border that is wide open? It is what the center of gravity of this whole thing has been about the whole time, which is sending $61 billion to a foreign country. We should have a robust debate about that. We absolutely should, but we are lying to ourselves if we somehow believe that is more important to Americans than securing our own border. It is not. prgtoken You know it when you go home and you talk to people, what they are talking--the polling certainly doesn't indicate that. But here we are. It is fine. We are here. Let's have a debate. I am going to reserve some comments for a later time on how we could actually have that debate in the U.S. Senate without another Senator having the opportunity to offer an amendment. prgtoken I have had so many conversations with s and who believe that there are 99 other people here--or 98 other people here or 96 other people here, depending on who is getting to draw up the four corners, and our willingness to sort of diminish the power of an individual Senator who is sent here by an entire State is baffling. And I do think that this place is ripe for some sort of bipartisan reform on process. This pent-up energy that exists is partly to blame because there are no vehicles for people to actually offer amendments. prgtoken You know, Senator Collins and Senator Murray have worked on the appropriations process. We have spent 8 hours in 14 months on that on the floor. I suppose more on that to come. prgtoken But it is Super Bowl Sunday, so I guess I will give a Super Bowl analogy or football analogy about what has happened at our southern border. prgtoken I wish I had been smart enough to think about having a John Madden prgtoken board here with the offense and defensive line lined up about the play that drew up in early 2021, but it goes something like this: We had the best defense that football had seen in 45 years, the lowest level of illegal im
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Susan M. Collins (Republican, ME) \u2014 2024-2-11

the national security supplemental before us is of profound importance to America's security. It will provide updated, modern, effective munitions to our troops, rebuild our flagging defense industrial base, allow our Navy to continue its vital operations in the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, and support our allies. prgtoken Now, time does not permit me to correct every misunderstanding and misrepresentation about this bill that we have heard on the Senate floor and elsewhere, but I do want to correct some of the most egregious misstatements because the American people should have the facts. prgtoken The defense supplemental bill before us would strengthen our own military by providing $35 billion to restore our military readiness, modernize our arsenal of democracy, and rebuild our defense industrial base. It would send a strong message to Putin that his goal--his dream--of capturing free, democratic nations like Ukraine will not be allowed to succeed. It would reassure our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel, which is battling terrorists who have killed more Israelis--more Jews--in a single day since the Holocaust, who have taken as hostages babies and the elderly, and who are using innocent Palestinians as human shields. It would help deter a rising and menacing China, whose navy now exceeds the size of our own. Each of these investments is in our self-interest. It makes America more secure. prgtoken A claim was made yesterday that this bill gives $238 million to increase U.S. troop deployments to Europe. The implication was that this bill increases funding to send U.S. troops into combat in Ukraine. prgtoken That is simply not true. The funding in this bill supports, through the end of the year, U.S. servicemembers who are principally in Poland and Germany working with our allies to train and equip the courageous Ukrainians. prgtoken The Ukrainians are the ones who are doing the fighting and taking the casualties. No American soldiers are dying on the Ukrainian battlefield. We are training and equipping the Ukrainians because it is the right thing to do, but, also, is in America's self-interest. prgtoken The best way to ensure that the United States is not drawn into a larger regional war in Europe, in which our troops could be put at risk, is by helping Ukraine defend itself against this brutal, unprovoked invasion. If Russia prevails in Ukraine, Putin will be in a position to threaten our NATO allies all along Ukraine's border, including Poland and one of our newest members, Finland. prgtoken What we are doing through this bill is to greatly diminish the risk that the United States could be drawn into these larger conflicts. History is filled with examples of well-intentioned leaders who sought to avoid war but who actually made war more likely by refusing to recognize the evil with which they were confronted. Neville Chamberlain declared ``peace in our time'' trying to appease Germ
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Bill Cassidy (Republican, LA) \u2014 2024-2-11

Abraham Lincoln, when he opened up the Gettysburg Address, said: Few will little note, nor long remember what I say here today. prgtoken As I rise as the Super Bowl is about to begin, I realize that most people are looking for a view of Taylor Swift and not listening to us. But nonetheless, I feel compelled to come because we are obviously considering important issues. prgtoken As we know, we are currently discussing a national security bill that would assist Israel after the October 7 attack and resist the efforts of Putin and the Chinese Communist Party. But this issue, importantly, has become entwined with border security, U.S. border security. prgtoken The way things work--and we all know this in the Chamber but just to specify--if any bill is going to be signed into law, it is because you have good policy, you have good politics, and it has good process. If you don't have those three things on a big bill, then something is not going through. prgtoken I would like to talk about that policy, politics, process dynamic here and how the process is being used to defeat the passage of good policy. By the way, it is that process which confuses folks, but I will get to that. Let me just first discuss a little bit of the policy. prgtoken I am speaking as a , a conservative , and I can say that almost all s want to confront the Chinese Communist Party. We understand around the world that the Chinese Communist Party is doing its best to undermine the interest of the United States, turning a blind eye as fentanyl is imported into our country, with 60,000 to 100,000 people in any given year dying from overdoses. We understand that the Chinese Communist Party takes our industry, subsidizes theirs with that industry that moves over there, and they take our jobs. Then they pollute the atmosphere, and it blows over to the United States. This is a geopolitical rival, and the Chinese Communist Party has turned their eyes upon Taiwan. prgtoken Most s--all s--want to confront China--or so they say. Most s want to keep Vladimir Putin from killing Americans. We understand he is trying to kill Americans. If anybody watching now or later wants to dispute that fact, just Google ``Wagner Group''--Wagner Group, that group of Russians, that military group attacking U.S. soldiers in the Middle East. You go there, you are going to find an article. You can find a radio transcript of them attacking our troops. We slaughtered them. That is not the point. They intended to slaughter us. Russian troops attacked Americans. Russians are in Venezuela. In Venezuela, they have helped that become a narco-state in which drugs are being imported to the United States. And Russian troops are trying to hurt us around the world. Most s, if not all, say they are against that. prgtoken Lastly, let's talk briefly about support of Israel. s support Israel, and after
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Richard J. Durbin (Democrat, IL) \u2014 2024-2-11

let me join the comments of the Independent ic Senator from Maine and the kind words for his colleague because what she said in a brief period of time is so important at this moment of debate. prgtoken I note with pride that of the top nations, on a proportional basis, supporting the effort in Ukraine, the Baltics ranked at the top and that these small nations, determined to be free, know what it means to invest in the cause of the Ukrainians. prgtoken I also note and I believe she made reference to the fact that a country like Poland, which ranks fifth on the list of proportional assistance to Ukraine, is giving so much that is not accounted for in the ledger books. The people of Ukraine, when they left in a panic over the invasion of the Russians, went to Poland and were accepted in that country as neighbors that were going to give a helping hand when the Polish people opened their homes. The leader in the Polish Government said to me: Senator, you look all over Poland. You won't find a refugee camp of Ukrainian refugees. They are living in our homes. prgtoken That type of assistance is not calculated easily in the accounting books, but it is meaningful. prgtoken I might add that among the top five nations I noted on the chart was Finland. Finland, because of its leadership, decided to join NATO. And their arrival, it is my understanding, and their accession into NATO doubled the border that Russia has to face of NATO countries in size. Finland is a very large country. We are glad to have them as part of NATO and its future. That is at stake as well. prgtoken I don't want to get political in this issue about the future of NATO, but I think it is pretty clear there are those of us who believe 31 nations in NATO are indispensable for maintaining security in Europe for years to come--decades to come--and we have to invest in it. prgtoken If the United States should step away from this NATO commitment to Ukraine by its action on Capitol Hill, shame on us. There is so much at stake here in terms of the future of democracy. prgtoken Last night--I will close with this--as I was leaving Capitol Hill in the darkness, I passed by four or five people standing on the sidewalk outside. They were Ukrainians and Ukrainian Americans who were there to beg us to stand by their country in this hour of need. They have been keeping a watch for weeks and months at a time so that the U.S. commitment to Ukraine is appreciated by them, and they express it to us as Members of Congress. prgtoken I saw them standing in the dark and realized there may be many Americans going about their business, but these Ukrainian Americans know that this decision by the U.S. Congress and the Senate and the House could literally decide the future and fate of their homeland in Ukraine. prgtoken I think it is an essential responsibility on a bipartisan basis. And I thank Senator McConnell for his inspiring words this morning. On a bip