mesut/congress_speeches huggingface dataset:
OPPOSITION TO S. 3201, THE TEMPORARY REAUTHORIZATION AND STUDY OF THE EMERGENCY SCHEDULING OF FENTANYL ANALOGUES ACT
Peter A. DeFazio (Democrat, OR) \u2014 2020-2-4

. Madam , on January 29, I voted against S. 3201, the Temporary Reauthorization and Study of the Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act. prgtoken Fentanyl, a deadly synthetic drug 50 times more powerful than heroin, is wreaking havoc on Americans across the country. In 2017, there were over 47,000 opioid overdose deaths, and 28,000 of those deaths involved synthetic opioids such as fentanyl. In Oregon, fentanyl use and deaths associated with fentanyl use continue to climb: In 2013, there were 14 related fentanyl deaths in Oregon; In 2018, there were more than 75. prgtoken We must to do more to combat this epidemic. We should start with aggressively cracking down on major manufacturers. According to the Oregon-Idaho High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program, most non- pharmaceutical fentanyl and fentanyl analogues that are available in Oregon are illicitly manufactured--primarily in China, as well as in Mexico--and then imported into the United States. prgtoken That's why I am a cosponsor of the Fentanyl Sanctions Act. This legislation would require the imposition of sanctions on drug manufacturers in China who knowingly provide synthetic opioids to traffickers, transnational criminal organizations (such as cartels in Mexico who are known to mix fentanyl with other drugs before trafficking them into the U.S.), and financial institutions that assist such entities. It would also authorize new funding for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to combat the foreign trafficking of synthetic opioids and urge the president to significantly ramp up diplomatic efforts with China and Mexico to establish multilateral sanctions against foreign synthetic opioid traffickers. I am pleased that this important legislation was included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 that was signed into law last year. prgtoken However, I have strong concerns that S. 3201 will expose more individuals to prosecutions and aggressive federal mandatory minimums for even trace amounts of illicit fentanyl and fentanyl analogues, undermine our progress on bipartisan sentencing reform efforts like the First Step Act, and fail to focus our efforts on combatting major illicit fentanyl manufacturers and traffickers. prgtoken We must not arrest our way out of this crisis. This epidemic demands thoughtful legislation from Congress, not a knee-jerk response that is likely to exacerbate troubling trends in federal drug prosecutions and incarceration levels. prgtoken Given that S. 3201 will extend the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) emergency scheduling of fentanyl-related substances through May 6, 2021, I hope the committees of jurisdiction use that time to develop a balanced, comprehensive approach that protects public health and safety while addressing fentanyl overdoses and reducing the harm of federal mandatory minimums and overincarceration.
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
Chris Van Hollen (Democrat, MD) \u2014 2020-2-4

it is the constitutional duty of each Senator to weigh the evidence before us and render a final verdict on the two Articles of Impeachment. prgtoken On the charge of abuse of power, the House managers have presented overwhelming evidence, a ``mountain of it,'' as Senator Alexander has conceded. For anyone with eyes to see or ears to hear, President undoubtedly used the power of the Presidency to withhold vital, taxpayer-funded military aid from Ukraine to extort its government into helping him in his reelection campaign. He did so even though fighting Russian aggression is in our national interest. And make no mistake, the fact that he got caught before his scheme succeeded is no defense. prgtoken The House has also proved its case on the charge of obstruction of Congress. President has engaged in unprecedented stonewalling, a blanket coverup that makes President Nixon look like an amateur--not a single document produced nor a single witness. Those who did testify did so despite the President's order not to show up. They raised their right hands and swore to tell the truth. They included political appointees and a major donor to his campaign, individuals who served our country in war, dedicated public servants who took an oath to defend the Constitution. Dismissing them as ``anti-ers'' and ``ic witnesses'' is wrong, as were the President's attempts to bully and intimidate them. prgtoken With the facts proven, the Senate must now ask: Do these charges meet the standard for impeachment? The President claims impeachment requires charging him with a statutory crime, but that is a fringe view with patently absurd results. Their lead lawyer making this argument, Alan Dershowitz, did not hold this view during the Clinton impeachment; nor does 's Attorney General, William Barr; nor does Jonathan Turley, 's constitutional law expert at the House Judiciary Committee hearing--nor does the authority cited by the President's own lawyers here in the Senate and referenced nine times in their legal briefs. That authority, entitled ``Impeachment: A Handbook'' states that ``the limitation of impeachable offenses to those offenses made generally criminal by statute is unwarranted--even absurd.'' prgtoken This suggested standard has been roundly dismissed because it leads to ridiculous conclusions--for example, that a President could withhold taxpayer-funded disaster assistance to the people of a State until their Governor endorsed the President for reelection. prgtoken Even Alan Dershowitz recognized the folly of his own argument, so he switched to saying impeachment requires ``criminal-like'' conduct. Well, the President's actions here have all the markings of criminal- like conduct, including what the Founders would consider bribery and extortion. Moreover, as made clear by the nonpartisan legal opinion I requested from the GAO, the President and his team broke the im
CHIEF DAN BRENNAN
Ed Perlmutter (Democrat, CO) \u2014 2020-2-4

. Madam , I rise today to recognize and applaud retired Wheat Ridge Police Chief Dan Brennan on being awarded the West Metro Chamber of Commerce Steve Burkholder Diamond Legacy Award. prgtoken Throughout his career, Chief Brennan left his mark on Jefferson County--from the Lakewood Police Department, to helping create Jeffcom 911 and a regional SWAT Team, to a community approach to policing that addresses the causes of crime, not just the crime. prgtoken Brennan began his 42 years in law enforcement with the Lakewood Police Department rising through the ranks from Police Agent to Commander. During his career at Lakewood Police Department, he worked in multiple positions where his leadership and dedication to the community became apparent. prgtoken After being appointed Chief of the Wheat Ridge Police Department in 2005, along with other department employees, Brennan developed a new mission statement for the department: Exceptional people providing exceptional service. They also established a core set of values, with integrity at the core--which became Chief Brennan's mantra for the next 14+ years. prgtoken At the Wheat Ridge Police Department, he led the charge for a community policing approach to responding to crime, traffic, and quality of life issues in the community while ensuring all officers and supervisors received CIT mental health training and engaging the community and stakeholder groups to listen to community concerns and feedback. During that time, he served on various local, state and national boards and committees, including as the President of the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police. Throughout his esteemed career, he was awarded numerous awards and recognitions and was known for always trying to do the right thing for the right reasons. prgtoken Chief Brennan's leadership, compassion, is collaboration, and integrity left a positive mark on our community for years to come. I extend my deepest congratulations to Chief Dan Brennan for this well- deserved recognition and thank him for his countless contributions to our community.
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
Tina Smith (Democrat, MN) \u2014 2020-2-4

this morning, I let Minnesotans know that I will vote to remove President from office. I rise today because, on this historic vote, I want Minnesotans to understand why and where I think we go from here. prgtoken I was reluctant to go down the path of impeachment. While I strongly disagree with the President on many issues, I see impeachment as a last resort, and I feared that leaping to impeachment would only serve to drive us even further into our political corners. This changed when I read the whistleblower report, which alleged nothing less than the President's corrupt abuse of power, an abuse that had the potential to undermine our election in 2020. For me, this left no choice but for the House to fully investigate these allegations. prgtoken When the House sent the two Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, it became my job to ``do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws,'' and I take that oath as seriously as anything I have ever done. prgtoken This impeachment trial has been about whether the President's corrupt abuse of power--power that he used for his own personal, political benefit while betraying the public trust--is a high crime and misdemeanor as defined by the Founders of our Constitution. prgtoken I believe that it is, and I also believe that to condone corrupt behavior such as this undermines the core values we stand for as a nation that no one is above the law, including and most especially the President. prgtoken Over the past several weeks, I have listened carefully to hundreds of hours of presentations, questions and answers, and read thousands of pages of documents. Through it all, the facts underlying the case against the President were never really refuted. prgtoken The President, working through his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, withheld Ukrainian security assistance and a prestigious meeting in the White House in an effort to persuade President Zelensky to announce he was investigating and the theory that Ukraine interfered in our 2016 elections. In order to improve his prospects for reelection, directed that vital assistance be withheld until Ukraine announced investigations into a baseless conspiracy theory that originated as Russian propaganda, and he only released the aid when he was found out. prgtoken Then, when the House sought to investigate these actions, the White House categorically blocked any and all subpoenas for documents and witnesses. No U.S. President has ever categorically rejected the power of Congress to investigate and do oversight of the executive branch--not Nixon, not Clinton. This obstruction fractures the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches. prgtoken How can our constitutional system work if we allow the President to decide if and how Congress can investigate the President's misconduct? It can't. If we say that the President can decide when he cooperates wit
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
Mark R. Warner (Democrat, VA) \u2014 2020-2-4

before I get started on my comments, I want to commend my colleague from California, who has served in this body with great distinction for a long time, who was present during the preceding impeachment proceedings under President Clinton, and who, time and again--and I have had the honor of following in her shoes on the Intelligence Committee--has always been a voice who stood up for what is right, for what is correct, oftentimes what may not be politically expedient but what she thinks is right and appropriate. prgtoken It is with great honor that I follow her as I make my statement as well on this most serious of matters, the impeachment of Donald J. . So I thank my friend, the senior Senator from California, for her comments.
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
Edward J. Markey (Democrat, MA) \u2014 2020-2-4

I thank you. prgtoken Over the course of this trial, we have heard nothing less than a blistering, scalding indictment of President 's conduct. The House managers put forward a compelling--indeed, overwhelming--case that engaged in impeachable conduct. He withheld both congressionally approved aid to our ally Ukraine and an Oval Office meeting desperately sought by Ukraine's new President--two official acts--in exchange for personal favors that would benefit him politically. prgtoken sought an announcement by Ukraine of baseless investigations into bogus corruption allegations against , whom most feared as an opponent in the 2020 Presidential election. He also wanted Ukraine to announce an investigation into the discredited and debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 Presidential election. prgtoken At every turn, refused to cooperate with and actively obstructed Congress's investigation into his wrongdoing. His obstruction was, in the words of the Articles of Impeachment, ``unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate.'' prgtoken I listened carefully to the President's lawyers as they presented their defense case. Like my colleagues, I took pages of notes. My colleagues were very patiently trying to hear each argument that was being made by the defense counsel. I took notes. They took notes. prgtoken As I sat at this desk, with the seriousness and sanctity of the proceedings thick in the air, I waited for the President's lawyers to rebut the avalanche of evidence against their client, and I waited and I waited. At the end of the case, I was still waiting. And that is because the President's lawyers did nothing to rebut any of the facts in this case--nothing. They knew what we all knew after we heard the House managers' case. did it. He did it. He did exactly what he was alleged to have done. He abused his power. He committed impeachable crimes. He is guilty. There is no question about it--no question at all. prgtoken There is no doubt that President used his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to solicit Ukraine's interference in the 2020 election. There is no doubt that President froze the $391 million of taxpayer dollars in Ukraine military aid and security assistance that Congress authorized and appropriated. There is no doubt that President conditioned the release of that aid on the Ukrainian Government's announcement of politically motivated investigations. prgtoken There is no doubt that in a July 25, 2019, telephone call, President directly solicited investigations from President Zelensky, as the partial transcript memorialized and as Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney admitted. There is no doubt that President released the aid to Ukraine only after a patriot within the intelligence community blew the whistle on him and after several Hous
IMPEACHMENT
Mike Lee (Republican, UT) \u2014 2020-2-5

I have long maintained that most, if not all, of the most serious and vexing problems within our Federal Government can be traced to a deviation from the twin core structural protections of the Constitution. prgtoken There are two of these protections--one that operates along a vertical axis; the other, a horizontal. prgtoken The vertical protection we call federalism, which states a very simple fact: that in the American system of government, most power is to be reserved to the States respectively, or the people, where it is exercised at the State and local level. It is only those powers enumerated in the Constitution, either in article I, section 8 or elsewhere, that are made Federal, those things that the Founding Fathers appropriately deemed unavoidably, necessarily national or that we have otherwise rendered national through a subsequent constitutional amendment. prgtoken As was the case when James Madison wrote Federalist No. 45, the powers reserved to the States are numerous and indefinite, while those that are given to the Congress to be exercised federally are few and defined--few and defined powers, the Federal Government; numerous and indefinite reserved for the States. prgtoken The horizontal protection operates within the Federal Government itself, and it acknowledges that we have three coequal, independent branches within the Federal Government: one that makes the laws, one that executes the laws, and one that interprets the laws when people can't come to an agreement and have an active, live dispute as to the meaning of a particular law in a particular case or controversy. prgtoken Sadly, we have drifted steadily, aggressively from both of these principles over the last 80 years. For roughly the first 150 years of the founding of our Republic and of the operation of our constitutional structure, we adhered pretty closely to them, but over the last 80 years or so, we have drifted steadily. This has been a bipartisan problem. It was one that was created under the broad leadership of s and alike and, in fact, in Senates and Houses of Representatives and White Houses of every conceivable partisan combination. prgtoken We have essentially taken power away from the American people in two steps--first, by moving power from the State and local level and taking it to Washington, in violation of the vertical protection we call federalism; and then a second time, moving it away from the people's elected lawmakers in Washington to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats placed within the executive branch of government but who are neither elected by the people nor accountable to anyone who is electable. Thus, they constitute essentially a fourth branch of government within our system, one that is not sanctioned or contemplated by the Constitution and doesn't really fit all that well within its framework. prgtoken This has made the Federal Government bigger and more powerful. It
IMPEACHMENT
Tim Scott (Republican, SC) \u2014 2020-2-5

over the past few weeks, we have heard a lot of arguments, accusations, and anecdotes. Some very skilled speakers on both sides have presented their case both for and against impeachment. prgtoken I listened intently, hour after hour, day after day, to the House managers and the President's lawyers, and the word that kept coming to me, that I kept writing down in my notes was ``fairness'' because, you see, here in America you are innocent until proven guilty. prgtoken As the President's defense team noted, ``[A]t the foundation of those authentic forms of justice is fundamental fairness. It's playing by the rules. It's why we don't allow deflated footballs or stealing signs from the field. Rules are rules. They're there to be followed.'' prgtoken You can create all the rhetorical imagery in the world, but without the facts to prove guilt, it doesn't mean a thing. They can say the President cannot be trusted, but without proving why he can't be trusted, their words are just empty political attacks. prgtoken You can speak of David v. Goliath, but if you were the one trying to subvert the presumption of innocence, if you were the one to will facts into existence, you are not David; you have become Goliath. prgtoken Our job here in the Senate is to ensure a fair trial based on the evidence gathered by the House. I have been accused, as have many of my colleagues, of not wanting that fair trial. The exact opposite is true. We have ensured a fair trial in the Senate after House abused historical precedents in their zeal to impeach a President they simply do not like. prgtoken During prior impeachment proceedings in the last 50 years--lasting around 75 days or so in the House--the House's opposing party was allowed witnesses and the ability to cross-examine. This time, House s were locked out of the first 71 of 78 days. Let me say that differently. The ability to cross-examine the witnesses who are coming before the House against the President, the House s and the President's team were not allowed to cross-examine those witnesses. The ability to contradict and/or to cross-examine or have a conversation about the evidence at the foundation of the trial? The White House counsel and s were not allowed. Think about the concept of due process. The House s and President's team, were not allowed for 71 of 78 days in the House. This is not a fair process. Does that sound fair to you? prgtoken began talking about impeachment within months of President 's election and have made it clear that their No. 1 goal--perhaps their only goal--has been to remove him from office. Does that sound fair to you? prgtoken They have said: ``We are going to impeach the . . . '' and used an expletive. prgtoken They said: ``We have to impeach him, otherwise he's going to win the election.'' Now that might be the transparency we have been looking for in this process--the r
IMPEACHMENT
Cory Gardner (Republican, CO) \u2014 2020-2-5

over the last several months and last several weeks, the American people have watched Washington convulse in partisan accusations, investigations, and endless acrimony. That division reached its high watermark as the U.S. Senate carried out the third Presidential impeachment trial in our Nation's history. prgtoken We saw, over the last 2 weeks, an impeachment process that included the testimony of 17 witnesses, more than 100 hours of testimony, and tens of thousands of pages of evidence, records, and documents, which I successfully fought to make part of the record. I fought hard to extend the duration of testimony to ensure that each side could be heard over 6 days instead of just 4. But what we did not see over the last 2 weeks was a conclusive reason to remove the President of the United States-- an act which would nullify the 2016 election and rob roughly half the country of their preferred candidate for the 2020 elections. prgtoken House managers repeatedly stated that they had established ``overwhelming evidence'' and an ``airtight'' case to remove the President. Yet they also repeatedly claimed they needed additional investigation and testimony. A case cannot be both ``overwhelming'' and ``airtight'' and yet incomplete at the same time. That contradiction is not mere semantics. prgtoken In their partisan--their partisan--race to impeach, the House failed to do the fundamental work required to prove its case, to meet the heavy burden. For the Senate to ignore this deficiency and conduct its own investigation would weaponize the impeachment power. A House majority could simply short-circuit an investigation, impeach, and demand the Senate complete the House's work--what they were asking us to do. prgtoken The Founders were concerned about this very point. Alexander Hamilton wrote, regarding impeachments: ``[T]here will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.'' prgtoken More recently, Congressman Jerry Nadler, one of the House managers in the trial, said: There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment will lack legitimacy. prgtoken Last March, Nancy Pelosi said: ``Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.'' prgtoken The Framers knew that partisan impeachments could lead to impeachments over policy disagreements. Legal scholars like Charles Black have written that policy differences are not grounds for impeachment. But policy differences about corruption and the proper use of tax dollars are at the very heart of this impeachment. Nevertheless, that disagreement led