mesut/congress_speeches huggingface dataset:
UIGHUR INTERVENTION AND GLOBAL HUMANITARIAN UNIFIED RESPONSE ACT OF 2019
Mike Crapo (Republican, ID) \u2014 2020-10-21

in reserving the right to object, it is remarkable that we see here a series of unanimous consent requests to pass legislation without debate and without the opportunity for amendment and improvement. It is just a few hours after a refusal to proceed to legislation by which we could have done just that-- legislation that had $500 billion of additional assistance going out to the American people. Legislation that did address these unemployment issues--and that has been discussed over the last 45 minutes on the floor--was objected to so that we couldn't even get on the bill. prgtoken Following Nancy Pelosi's ``take it or leave it,'' ``my way or the highway'' approach, we are now here, seeing our colleagues on the other side pick up pieces of the legislation that Nancy Pelosi wants to pass without negotiating and without working through the legislative process to see if they can drive those through the Senate and object to not doing them in regular legislative order. prgtoken We are ready to engage in major legislation. Yet a couple of hours after we tried for the second or third time to put it on the floor--and had that opportunity refused by my colleagues on the other side--we are accused of not working on these issues, and the ``take it or leave it'' proposals from the House-passed legislation are being thrown on the floor of the Senate. prgtoken Let's talk about the current one--the proposal for rental assistance and eviction protection for those who need help in housing markets. I will say now that they need help. As I said the last time this effort was tried, they need help, and we need to work together instead of just trying to lob Nancy Pelosi's bill into the Senate when we can't get agreement to even put a major $500 billion relief package on the floor for debate and consideration. prgtoken Six months ago, this body came together and unanimously passed a package that provided historic, unprecedented support to the housing market both for homeowners and renters alike. We gave the majority of homeowners in this country the option of hitting the pause button on their mortgage payments. We prohibited foreclosures and evictions across a wide swath of the marketplace, which was recently expanded by the CDC to cover an even broader portion of the market, and we have extended it through the end of 2020. President , through his Executive orders, has extended this further. prgtoken We have appropriated in excess of $12 billion in supplemental funding to specifically enhance Federal housing programs. We have provided $150 billion in funding to States and local governments through the coronavirus relief fund, or CRF, a significant portion of which has been used for rental assistance. prgtoken We worked together in a bipartisan way on the CARES Act. I wish we could work on this next act the way we worked then, but, no, it is take it or leave it. And we are capable of doing the same in coming days
UIGHUR INTERVENTION AND GLOBAL HUMANITARIAN UNIFIED RESPONSE ACT OF 2019
Dan Sullivan (Republican, AK) \u2014 2020-10-21

I was in Alaska when Judge Amy Coney Barrett was before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but since then I have been able to catch up on those hearings. I want to commend my colleagues, particularly Senator Graham for conducting those hearings in a way that befitted such an occasion--with respect and good questioning. I think the American people--certainly my constituents-- learned a lot and were very, very impressed with Judge Barrett. prgtoken As you know, the advice and consent responsibility of the Senate is one of the most important responsibilities we have in the Constitution. The process that I will have gone through and go through with every single judge is to evaluate Judge Barrett's qualifications on her record, the hearings, and, of course, in discussions I have had with her. This has been an extensive evaluation. I have read hundreds of pages of the decisions she has authored. I have listened to and read the views of Alaskans both for and against her nomination. In my meeting with Judge Barrett, we discussed in great depth her viewpoint on a variety of national and Alaska-focused legal issues. prgtoken She clearly understands the separation of powers and federalism, holds a healthy skepticism regarding the expansive power of Federal Agencies, and is a strong protector and proponent of the Second Amendment--all issues that my constituents care deeply about. prgtoken Why are these issues so important to Alaska and central to our realizing our potential? Let me give a brief but recent example of an issue that recently made its way to the Ninth Circuit, which often is the bane of our existence in Alaska, to the Supreme Court not once but twice, and was unanimously agreed to by the Supreme Court. It is a case that some of the media here would be familiar with, Sturgeon v. Frost-- a moose hunter, a hovercraft, the wild interior of Alaska. It made for some great headlines. But the issue being litigated in that case was one of control, one of freedom--control of our lands, our waters, our fish, and game. The Federal Government, in essence, told John Sturgeon he couldn't use his hovercraft on Federal waters to go hunting. ``Yes, I can,'' said Sturgeon. He knew the law. prgtoken Then there was litigation. It is one that comes up time and again in Alaska--the issue of Federal overreach, agency creep. In Alaska, we have a front row to this problem. prgtoken We have seen it happen to us consistently by the courts-- particularly, as I mentioned, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. When they interpret statutes involving my State--and they are many--Federal statutes can only relate to Alaska in a way that fits with their ideas and policy notions about the way the Federal lands in Alaska should be managed. In essence, they typically think that less control by the people and more control by the government is what is needed. prgtoken But that often is not what Congress wrote and
UIGHUR INTERVENTION AND GLOBAL HUMANITARIAN UNIFIED RESPONSE ACT OF 2019
Cindy Hyde-Smith (Republican, MS) \u2014 2020-10-21

it is an honor to speak in strong support of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. After careful review of her record and her outstanding testimony during her confirmation hearing, it is clear that Judge Barrett is well suited for a lifetime appointment on the Court. prgtoken Last week, Judge Barrett firmly held her own during hours and hours of questioning from my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee. She did not once falter during her hearing. In fact, she excelled. Judge Barrett proved to the prgtoken American people that she is prepared, talented, compassionate, and, not to mention, brilliant. Judge Barrett demonstrated that she is an independent individual who can think for herself. She made it clear that she is an originalist who will follow the law. prgtoken Without a single note or binder in front of her, Judge Barrett repeatedly affirmed that she would interpret the Constitution and laws passed by Congress as they were written--no more, no less. prgtoken During her hearing, Judge Barrett testified: I apply the law. I follow the law. You make the policy. prgtoken The judge kept pointing out that we, the Senate, are the legislators. She stressed that she has no mission or agenda to change the law as she would want it. Judge Barrett made it abundantly clear that in her role as a jurist, she has no issues with setting aside her personal beliefs when applying the letter of the law. This mindset and legal philosophy is exactly the type of jurist we need on our Nation's highest Court. prgtoken Not only did we hear from Judge Barrett, but we heard from her former professors, colleagues, and students. These are the people who know her best. These individuals were witnesses not only to her intellect but her character as well. The testimonies on her behalf only proved her absolute readiness for this position. prgtoken Americans should be celebrating the nomination of Judge Barrett. She is brilliant, hard working, ambitious, and a proud mother and wife. In a time when we need role models for our youth, Judge Barrett fills that role. prgtoken The judge is a family-oriented woman who reveres the Constitution. She is a representative for working women across the country and a testament that women can have a career and family and be stunningly successful at both. prgtoken I also appreciate that she has displayed great strength in withstanding affronts to her faith and her family during the confirmation process. prgtoken If confirmed--and I am confident that she will be--Amy Coney Barrett will have the honor to be the fifth woman in history to serve on the Supreme Court. The first judge as a mother of school-aged children, she will be the only sitting judge on the Court to not have attended an Ivy League law school. prgtoken We must continue to ensure that women like Judge Barrett are represented in the highest levels of our judicial system
UIGHUR INTERVENTION AND GLOBAL HUMANITARIAN UNIFIED RESPONSE ACT OF 2019
Josh Hawley (Republican, MO) \u2014 2020-10-21

I would agree that it is a problem that we can't get hearings or votes on serious tech legislation. That is a problem. prgtoken The Senator makes my point. That is exactly the problem, and that is exactly what one gets from Big Tech's significant investment in the U.S. Capitol. They are getting exactly what they paid for prgtoken I would also say to my ic friends that you can't separate Big Tech's control of information and of the news and love it when they agree with you and condemn it when they don't. prgtoken I don't want to influence the platforms. I want to break them up. I don't want to influence how they use their power. I don't want them to have the power. I don't want them to agree with me. I don't want to influence or shape their views. I want them to stop trying to manipulate the American people. That should be the goal. prgtoken The goal is not to compromise their power. The goal is not to say: Hey, how about Big Government and Big Tech get together? We have had too much of that already. The goal should be to put a stop to their power and control, because the American people are supposed to be the sovereigns of this democracy, not Big Tech. prgtoken I say again to my liberal friends and to those on the conservative side of the ledger, as well: If you are not willing to challenge tech's control over news and over information and over communication and over messaging and over journalism, then, I don't think you have yet reckoned with the truly dangerous threat that these companies pose to the functioning of American democracy, and I don't think you have yet reckoned with the threat we are facing to the basic control of ``We the people.'' prgtoken For my part, I will not stop. I will continue to come to this floor as often as necessary. I will continue to raise my voice and make a nuisance of myself as often and as firmly as necessary until this body acts and until the American people are given back control of their democracy, their information, and their lives. prgtoken .
Coronavirus (Executive Calendar)
Mitch McConnell (Republican, KY) \u2014 2020-10-21

today, the Senate will have an opportunity to advance another COVID-19 relief package for American families. For more than 7 months now, the American people have been facing what one writer described as a ``health crisis with an economic crisis strapped to its back.'' prgtoken The Senate has stepped up repeatedly, on a bipartisan basis, to help our Nation through this challenge. Today, we have an opportunity to do it once again. prgtoken The legislation before us is neither s' nor ' idea of a perfect bill. I think we are all clear on that. But it would move us past Pelosi's all-or-nothing obstruction and deliver huge support right now for the most pressing needs of our country. prgtoken s want to conquer this disease through testing, treatments, and vaccines. say they agree with us. prgtoken s want to pour money into safe schools and make sure an entire prgtoken generation of kids don't fall any further behind, and say they agree with that. prgtoken s want to reopen the Paycheck Protection Program so that Main Streets across America don't turn into COVID-19 ghost towns, so that millions of workers can keep their jobs and keep getting paid. say they agree with that. prgtoken For workers who have been laid off, s want to renew the Federal supplement to unemployment insurance. say they agree with that. prgtoken s want to cement health protections for Americans with preexisting conditions, including COVID-19 itself. claim they are all over this issue. prgtoken And s want to take our Nation's college presidents, nonprofit leaders, and employers at their word when they say they need commonsense protections so that legal uncertainty does not block their reopening. prgtoken The bill on the floor would do every one of those things and much more. The overwhelming bulk of it are programs that claim they support. It turns out there is a special perk to being a Senator. When you actually support something, you get to vote for it. When you actually support something, you get to vote for it. When you actually want an outcome, you vote for it. prgtoken Strangely enough, that is not what seems to be happening. Our ic colleagues have been happy to talk about further relief as long as it remained a hypothetical concept. But every time the Senate has had a chance to actually do something, they said no. prgtoken In July, s tried to continue the Federal plus-up to unemployment insurance before it expired. Senator Schumer blocked it. In August, Senator McSally fought again to restart those benefits for laid-off Americans. Once again, stopped it cold. prgtoken In September, s wrote a sweeping proposal to deliver hundreds of billions of dollars for safe schools, unemployment benefits, paycheck protection, and the healthcare fight. Every single Senate De
MORNING BUSINESS
James E. Risch (Republican, ID) \u2014 2020-10-21

section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. prgtoken In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.
UIGHUR INTERVENTION AND GLOBAL HUMANITARIAN UNIFIED RESPONSE ACT OF 2019
Kelly Loeffler (Republican, GA) \u2014 2020-10-21

as the first U.S. Senator to call for the nomination and confirmation to fill Justice Ginsburg's seat before the November 3 election, I am proud to support Judge Amy Coney Barrett as President 's nominee for Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, but I am not the only one who is proud. Two weeks ago I joined Concerned Women for America in Marietta, GA, to kick off their nationwide bus tour in support of Judge Barrett's confirmation. Dozens attended, including men and women from every walk of life--families, business owners, policymakers, faith leaders, and students. prgtoken Judge Barrett has inspired millions of us across our country. She has reached the pinnacle of her profession, while upholding her Christian faith and values. She is a wife and a mother of seven children. She will become the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court with school- aged children. prgtoken Now the majority of Americans in the most recent Gallup poll agree we should vote to confirm her. prgtoken As I have traveled around the Peach State, the enthusiasm and admiration I hear from Georgians is very clear. President established a group of highly qualified candidates for the bench. He was transparent and well prepared for the moment. It is clear that he could not have made a better nomination. prgtoken Judge Barrett is a woman of remarkable intellect and character, with the judicial philosophy of originalism, and, as a textualist, she understands and respects the Court's role to interpret the law as written. As such, I believe Judge Barrett will uphold the Constitution in protecting our God-given rights, including the right to life, the Second Amendment, free speech, and religious liberty. prgtoken The need for judges who will uphold the intent of the Framers is especially clear when the left is showing their disregard for our Constitution. are attempting to change article I and trying to federalize the election system through the creation of a national universal ballot system, and Nancy Pelosi has attempted to politicize and weaponize the 25th Amendment in another desperate move to form a committee to remove an elected President. prgtoken That is why I introduced a resolution condemning the for her political gains in the middle of an election while refusing to support relief for hard-working families impacted by this pandemic. prgtoken Now, Big Tech is aggressively limiting the First Amendment right to free speech and free press. Created before the existence of the very companies that are silencing conservatives, the 1996 Communications Decency Act's section 230 provision no longer suits our country's needs. Last week, Justice Clarence Thomas called on Congress to update these laws to ``make them more appropriate for an Internet-driven society.'' prgtoken In the Senate I am leading the charge to modernize the law to suit the reality of the digital marketplace of ideas by introducing the Stop
UIGHUR INTERVENTION AND GLOBAL HUMANITARIAN UNIFIED RESPONSE ACT OF 2019
Roy Blunt (Republican, MO) \u2014 2020-10-21

let me just follow right on with that important topic of the vote we will have in a few days to send another Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. prgtoken I had the opportunity this morning to meet with Judge Barrett. The conversation reminded me exactly why she is the right choice to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court now. I was asked the first weekend of this discussion, before the President had made the decision, if I could vote for her, and I quickly said yes, having watched her circuit judge bipartisan confirmation, having seen how that discussion went. I have had her on a short list that I have kept myself for a long time as someone who would be an important addition to the Court. prgtoken She was first in her class at Notre Dame; clerked on the district court in Washington, DC; clerked for Justice Scalia at the Supreme Court; and was a law professor at Notre Dame for 15 years. At least three times in that 15 years, she was chosen by students as the top faculty member. She was bipartisanly confirmed on the Seventh Circuit and has a history over the last 3 years of the kind of Justice she would be. prgtoken The dean at the law school at Notre Dame had this to say about Judge Amy Coney Barrett. He said: Judge Amy Coney Barrett is an absolutely brilliant legal scholar and jurist. . . . She lives a life of humility and grace, devoted to her family and community. prgtoken Somebody else at the Notre Dame Law School said that when Professor Barrett was in the room, the smartest person in the room was also the most humble person in the room. I think we saw some of that when she was before the Judiciary Committee as she answered those questions understanding what her job was, understanding the job of a judge is not to decide what the law should say but what the law does say; not to decide what the Constitution should say but what it does say and even more importantly, in her view of what a judge should look at, what people thought it said when they wrote it, that textualist, that originalist concept. She I think rightly perceived that if we want to change the Constitution, there is a way to do that. If we want to update it to what it might mean now, we have the chance to do that. Certainly, if we want to change the law, we have the chance to do that. prgtoken If you really listened to the questions, particularly from our friends on the other side, the on that committee, they were all very much premised on: Well, what do you believe? What do you think about this? What do you think about that? prgtoken That is not the point. She, I thought, very consistently, for 24 hours, made the point that the point is, it is not about what I believe; it is about what the law says. prgtoken By the way, members of the committee--she didn't say this, but it was obvious--it is your job to decide what the law says. It is the job of the Court to decide how the law is applied and whether it m
Protect and Serve Act (Executive Calendar)
Thom Tillis (Republican, NC) \u2014 2020-10-21

I rise today to speak on behalf of the brave and hard-working men and women of law enforcement across this Nation. prgtoken Last month, I talked about the dangerous consequences of inaction by the Senate if we didn't come to protect them. Unfortunately, since my last speech, four more law enforcement officers, men and women, have died--been murdered--in the line of duty. That is a 20-percent increase over the number last year. prgtoken That doesn't count the hundreds of police officers who have been injured in the line of duty, many of them still recovering from their wounds. The groundswell of violence against law enforcement is shocking, and it is our responsibility as Senators to act. prgtoken Enough is enough. Rather than support radical ideas like defunding and abolishing the police, the Senate should take the lead and pass meaningful legislation to protect law enforcement officers, increasing funding, improving training, and raising standards. That is why I again call on my prgtoken colleagues to support and pass the Protect and Serve Act, a bill that I sponsored and a bill that I hope we can get passed. prgtoken The Protect and Serve Act would punish dangerous criminals who murder a law enforcement officer in the line of duty. If they murder a law enforcement officer in the line of duty, they will be sentenced to life. If they injure a law enforcement officer in the line of duty, they will be sentenced to 10 years in prison. The premise of the legislation is simple: There is no escape from justice for dangerous criminals who intentionally assault or kill a law enforcement officer. prgtoken The Senate passes legislation almost every day in this Chamber by unanimous consent, but I am sad to report that if I try to get unanimous consent for this bill, we would have objection on the floor. prgtoken The heated rhetoric and the violent attacks on officers are having real-world impacts, and the safety of law enforcement has never been at the low that it is today. Across the country, recruitments are down. Fewer people are applying to go into service or into law enforcement academies, and retirements are up. We are seeing our law enforcement ranks dwindle. It is sad, but it is not surprising. prgtoken Law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every single day. Every morning, they wake up, they kiss their spouse goodbye, and they don't know if they are going to come back safely. But when they spend all day being disrespected while doing this very difficult and very dangerous job and politicians harass them or allow them to be harassed, I should say, by violent mobs and protesters, there is no wonder morale is at an alltime low. prgtoken Fewer police means more criminal activity. It means hard-working American citizens who go to work every day just to make their lives better are living in communities that are less safe. We cannot sit idly by and allow the streets to be filled with dangerous,