mesut/congress_speeches huggingface dataset:
Nomination of Julie A. Su (Executive Session)
Alex Padilla (Democrat, CA) \u2014 2023-5-3

I rise today to urge my colleagues to support President 's nominee to serve as Secretary of Labor, current Acting Secretary Julie Su. prgtoken Julie is a proud Californian and a champion for workers everywhere. She was a tireless advocate for workers in California for years. I was honored to introduce her before the HELP Committee 2 years ago when she was first nominated to serve as Deputy Secretary of Labor. prgtoken I should note that, that year, I was also proud to see every single ic Senator vote to confirm her nomination. In the time since, I think it is perfect to ask, what has happened? I will tell you what has happened. She has gained even more experience in defending workers nationwide and in managing a Federal Department. prgtoken As a highly effective Deputy Secretary of Labor and now as Acting Secretary, she has played a critical role in helping the administration add 12.6 million jobs to the American economy, which is more job gains than any previous President has achieved in a 4-year term. It is further proof that job creation and strong labor protections are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they go hand in hand in building a strong, resilient economy. prgtoken Julie's service and track record come as no surprise, frankly, when you understand where she came from. She is the daughter of immigrants and a native of California. She knows personally the sacrifices that many working families make to make ends meet. Her parents worked hard for decades in minimum wage jobs before establishing and growing their own small business. prgtoken So, yes, colleagues, Julie Su and her family have seen both sides of a paycheck. They instilled in Julie a strong work ethic, which has led her to take on tough fights as a labor lawyer, as labor secretary for the State of California, as Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor, and now as Acting Secretary. prgtoken I also have to note, as the secretary of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency--the then-fifth largest economy in the world and now the fourth largest economy in the world--she was a strong manager who led a number of major departments, boards, and panels at the State level. prgtoken Her experience and qualifications are unmatched. As former Secretary Walsh put it, Julie is a ``lifelong champion of America's workers.'' prgtoken I will end with this: If confirmed, she would be the first Asian American to serve as a Secretary in President 's Cabinet. Millions of Americans will see themselves represented at the highest levels of government and take pride in her story as a daughter of working-class immigrants. prgtoken I was proud to hear her impressive recent testimony in the HELP Committee when I introduced her once again and where she was successfully voted out of committee. She is exactly the type of labor champion we need at this critical time. prgtoken I urge my colleagues to join me in once again confir
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RELATING TO "ENDANGERED AND THREATENED...
Michael F. Bennet (Democrat, CO) \u2014 2023-5-3

I am so delighted that the Presiding Officer is in the Chair--the Senator from Nevada--who has led this fight on the floor against this incredibly counterproductive measure that the Senator from Florida has brought here--incredibly, in the name, somehow, of being tough on China. prgtoken I have seen lots of things on this floor that didn't make sense. I have seen lots of things where I have wondered about the judgment of people who were pursuing something allegedly in the interests of the American people, allegedly in the interests of American jobs, allegedly in the interests of manufacturing, allegedly because we are competing with China. prgtoken I have never seen something as counterproductive as this, and I want to thank the Presiding Officer for her leadership because she comes from Nevada and I come from Colorado, and we know the jobs that are at stake here--tens of thousands of jobs that could go away--a billion dollars of tariffs, of taxes that our solar industry would have to pay as they are going out of business because of what the Senator from Florida is trying to do in the name of being tough on the Chinese. prgtoken So let's talk about that for a second. Let's think about who is actually being tough on the Chinese. One of the benefits of the way the Chinese are organized--well, they see it as a benefit; I don't see it as a benefit, but they do--is that they don't live in a democracy; they live in a totalitarian society. In that totalitarian society, they can make 5-year plans; they can make 10-year plans. Xi can say: This is what we are going to do for the next 5 years. This is what we are going to do for the next 10 years. prgtoken And I would argue that, for the 20 years that we were spending fighting those two wars in the Middle East that we probably shouldn't have been fighting for those 20 years, the Chinese were marching along and marching along and marching along, stealing our intellectual property and developing new industries and new technologies. We had our eye off the ball. prgtoken One of the things that is hard about democracy is that sometimes we can't really plan much longer than between two elections--or one election, if we are really being pathetic. But, recently, there has been a different approach here. Recently, there has been a different approach in the infrastructure bill that we passed a couple of years ago that was bipartisan. It was the first infrastructure bill of any significance since Eisenhower was our President. prgtoken We finally said: Do you know what? We need to start investing in our country again. prgtoken And all over Nevada, all over Colorado, Americans are working on our prgtoken roads and bridges--long overdue--as a result of bipartisan work, s and working together. prgtoken There was another bill that we passed that was the semiconductor legislation, the so-called CHIPS Act. Some people remember--I certainly do--when I was
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RELATING TO "ENDANGERED AND THREATENED...
Sherrod Brown (Democrat, OH) \u2014 2023-5-3

I will continue. I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ``order'' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ``I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action''; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a ``more convenient season.'' Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured. In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus be
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RELATING TO "ENDANGERED AND THREATENED...
Robert P. Casey, Jr. (Democrat, PA) \u2014 2023-5-3

I will continue the reading of Martin Luther King's letter from the Birmingham jail. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: ``How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?'' The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: Just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ``an unjust law is no law at all.'' Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an ``I it'' relationship for an ``I thou'' relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence, segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong. Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if
The Economy (Executive Session)
John Thune (Republican, SD) \u2014 2023-5-4

as I begin, I want to talk about another subject here in a moment, but I also want to react to what the Senator from Illinois said with regard to the debt limit. prgtoken I think it is important to point out, as folks on the other side and the White House talk about the need for a ``clean debt limit''--in other words, a debt limit that increases the amount of borrowing without anything whatsoever attached to it--that in 7 of the last 10 debt limit debates, there were budgetary or policy items that were negotiated and attached--in 7 of the last 10 debt limits. Many of those were insisted upon by the at the time. In fact--I pointed this out yesterday--President , when he was Vice President back in 2011, made statements that he couldn't understand how anybody could not understand the importance or the need to negotiate on a debt limit increase and other policy matters related, hopefully, to spending and debt. prgtoken It seems to me, at least, that a debt limit debate presents an opportunity to actually do something about the debt and to address the issue of spending. There have been a number of good suggestions made in a bill that has been sent over to us from the House of Representatives about how to do that--about how to save money, how to make government more efficient, reallocate, reprioritize how we spend money, and, hopefully, reduce the amount of debt that we actually have going forward and, perhaps, the need to again raise the debt limit. prgtoken It seems like every time we have this conversation, everybody laments the fact that we have to do this and that we have this huge debt. Well, one way to address that would be to actually have a conversation about what we might do to reduce the debt in the form of spending reforms and budgetary changes that could address both the spending and the debt issue. So 7 of the last 10 times, that has happened, and in many cases, it has been instigated by the leaders, including Senator Schumer. prgtoken One other observation about that--because I think it is important--is you talk about spending and debt. Think about just the absolute aggregate levels that we are now dealing with in terms of debt. I make this point because, back in 2010, the amount that we spent annually on interest on the debt was a little under $200 billion; and in 2022, last year, the amount that we spent on interest on the debt--in other words, just to finance the debt, to pay the interest on the amount of borrowing that we have in this country--was $475 billion. So, in that time period from 2010, we went from paying a little under $200 billion a year in interest on the debt to $475 billion a year in interest on the debt. That is a 142-percent increase. That is going to go up dramatically, as we all know, because interest rates are going up. So now the cost of borrowing is increasing dramatically. In fact, over the next 10 years, the estimate is that 50 c
ELECTRIC VEHICLES
John Cornyn (Republican, TX) \u2014 2023-5-4

since President took office, he and our ic colleagues have been on a prgtoken mission--a mission to replace every car in America with an electric vehicle. prgtoken Think about that for a minute. There are 280 million cars on the road in America, and our colleagues on the ic side of the aisle want to replace every single internal combustion engine with a big battery with wheels on it, known as an electric vehicle. They are determined to please the Green New Deal enthusiasts by shoveling mountains of taxpayer money into this effort, and they are making some headway. prgtoken Last summer, our ic colleagues abused the rules of the Senate to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on something called the Inflation Reduction Act, which, in true Washington form, does not actually reduce inflation. But that is the name they gave to it. More importantly, this massive bill included a variety of pet projects, from a supersized Internal Revenue Service to handouts for rich folks who want to buy electric vehicles. prgtoken Wealthy Americans, the only ones who can afford these expensive cars, can receive up to $7,500 in taxpayer assistance to buy an electric vehicle. So, in effect, you and I and everyone in the country is subsidizing, with our tax dollars, a private, well-to-do person to buy an electric vehicle, most of which costs in the $60 to $70 to $80,000 range and up. prgtoken passed this bill at a time when most people can't afford their basic expenses. That is because of inflation, another product of profligate spending. Working families are struggling to keep up with the cost of everything from gasoline to groceries, to rent and electricity. Our ic colleagues responded by forcing every person in America to subsidize wealthy people's purchase of an electric car. prgtoken Initial estimates pegged the costs of these EV tax credits, as they are called, at just over $30 billion. That is a lot of money. But private forecasters have recently reevaluated that number based on more precise projections. They said that the actual cost of the electric vehicle credits will be closer to $196 billion--6\1/2\ times higher than advertised. prgtoken Again, hard-working families are suffering under inflation. When everything costs more, their purchasing power is diminished. Washington, DC, and our friends on the ic side of the aisle said: Well, your life is not quite hard enough; so we are going to make it harder. We are going to force you to subsidize wealthy people's purchase of these cars. prgtoken Unfortunately, that is not the end of the story. The administration recently rolled out new rules to ensure--or at least to claim--that, by 2032, two-thirds of new passenger vehicles sold in the United States will be electric. prgtoken By 2032, President will be long gone. Probably many Members of the U.S. House and Senate will no longer be in office. Nevertheless,
Justice Department and FBI (Executive Session)
Chuck Grassley (Republican, IA) \u2014 2023-5-4

in the past several years, I have come to this Senate Chamber to discuss my constitutional oversight of the Justice Department and the FBI. In many of those floor speeches, I have discussed legally protected and unclassified whistleblower disclosures that were made to my office relating to the Hunter criminal investigation. prgtoken These disclosures were made public in the interest of transparency and accountability because the public's business should be public, and we should know, as Senators or Congressmen and Congresswomen, whether the executive branch of government is faithfully executing the laws as the Constitution requires. prgtoken Those disclosures that I have made have a very common theme: The Justice Department and FBI have allowed political infection to take root within each Agency's decision-making process. Such an infection is an existential threat to any government Agency, but to a law enforcement Agency that can interfere with our constitutional rights, such an infection is catastrophic. prgtoken After Crossfire Hurricane, which was the definition of a political investigation, the whistleblower disclosures demanded congressional attention more than ever. So I wrote public letters asking questions. I directly asked the same to the Attorney General and the FBI Director at committee hearings. I have asked them about allegations that politics infected the Hunter prgtoken investigation. This sort of political bias erodes trust in government and prevents the equal application of the law as required by the Constitution. prgtoken I have also asked them about allegations that the FBI used false claims of Russian disinformation to bury potential criminal investigations about Hunter and James . Also, I asked them about allegations regarding specific records within the Department's possession relating to potential criminal conduct by the s. I have asked about allegations regarding specific records that show may have been involved in Hunter 's business arrangements. prgtoken The allegations my office has received are very precise, very direct, and very consistent. Accordingly, they are highly credible. These credible allegations raise important and fundamental questions, like these questions: prgtoken Did the FBI follow normal investigative procedures to vet these claims? prgtoken Did the FBI follow the facts wherever they led, or did they improperly shut down credible leads in advance of the 2020 election? prgtoken Remember, I have been raising these questions for a long period of time. I have done it through many venues: letters, in hearings, in private calls with Agency leadership, and, like today, right here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. prgtoken The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation had plenty of opportunities to respond to all of these questions I have raised. Not once--let me emphasize: not once has the Justice Department
DEFEND OUR NETWORKS
Deb Fischer (Republican, NE) \u2014 2023-5-4

over a decade ago, when President was in office and Apple's iPad was just hitting the market, our intelligence agencies began to notice a disturbing pattern. Chinese- made communications equipment was multiplying across our country, placed on top of cell towers throughout the Midwest. prgtoken Equipment made by Chinese State-backed companies like Huawei and ZTE spread across my own home State of Nebraska, as well as nearby Colorado and Montana. prgtoken Curiously, these technologies were clustering near critical military locations in midwestern States. Nebraska is home to sensitive areas, like Offutt Air Force Base and a number of nuclear missile silos. prgtoken Well, the FBI looked into it. And they discovered that at least one Chinese company--Huawei--was regularly selling its equipment to rural providers at cheap prices that appeared unprofitable. But once installed, the equipment would be located right next to American military assets. prgtoken The Chinese Communist Party is actively seeking ways to disrupt Department of Defense communications. And that is why we cannot allow communications equipment made in China next door to our military sites. prgtoken This is just one example of the pervasive threat Chinese-made equipment in our communications networks poses to our national security. prgtoken We know that the Chinese Communist Party intends to exploit these vulnerabilities for all kinds of activities, including espionage. prgtoken That is why, in 2020, the Federal Communications Commission banned the use of its funds to expand or maintain networks containing any Huawei or ZTE equipment. Since then, the Commission banned all equipment authorizations for several Chinese tech firms that pose threats to national security--blocking their imports and sale. prgtoken We also passed a law in Congress approving $1.9 billion to secure our communications infrastructure--to rip out the Chinese network gear and replace it with secure equipment. prgtoken It has been years, but not all of this dangerous Chinese gear has been replaced. Approximately 24,000 pieces of Chinese-made equipment remain in 8,400 different locations across our country. Nearly all of the 85 companies approved by the FCC are still waiting for that Federal reimbursement money, because they aren't able to pay to replace the technologies without help. prgtoken The FCC's program is facing a budget shortfall of $3.08 billion. The sum of money that we first approved based on initial estimates is not going to cut it. prgtoken That financial uncertainty means smaller, regional carriers--after being mandated by the Federal Government to rip out the equipment-- won't receive the money they need to replace that high-risk Chinese technology. prgtoken I have heard from rural carriers that this basically leaves them with two options: one, go out of business; or, two, to never replace the equipment after they remove it, and, instead, that would reduce