mesut/congress_speeches huggingface dataset:
NATIONAL ORIGIN-BASED ANTIDISCRIMINATION FOR NONIMMIGRANTS ACT
Tom McClintock (Republican, CA) \u2014 2021-4-21

. Madam , this bill presents a very simple question: Should we all but strip the President of his authority to restrict travel from countries that pose a danger to the United States? prgtoken Ronald Reagan and used this authority to protect our country. So, too, did and even as recently as January 25. prgtoken President invoked this authority against countries that were hotbeds of international terrorism and that were not cooperating with the United States in providing basic information about travelers coming from these countries. Now, the left calls it a Muslim ban. What nonsense. The President's orders affected only a tiny fraction of Muslim-majority countries and a sizable number of non-Muslim countries. The Supreme Court cited this obvious truth when it fully upheld the President's actions. In fact, when a rogue government changed its policy and cooperated with us, the restrictions were lifted. prgtoken Without this authority, the President would have been powerless to take simple, prudent precautions against terrorists and criminals from entering the United States. prgtoken The President's ability to protect against threats, negotiate security protocols, and, when necessary, retaliate against discriminatory actions by other countries depends on his having this power at his immediate disposal. prgtoken This bill, instead, forbids the President from taking action until he can show that it is the weakest possible measure at his disposal. It requires him to get his own Secretary of State's permission, which is a constitutional absurdity, and it gives anyone who claims any harm the standing to block an order in Federal district court. prgtoken So, I ask, in this world that is becoming increasingly threatening and unstable, does this bill make us more safe or less safe? The answer should be self-evident to anyone who is not completely besotted with the woke insanity of the radical left.
ACCESS TO COUNSEL ACT OF 2021
Louie Gohmert (Republican, TX) \u2014 2021-4-21

. Madam , I know it seems compassionate to those who support this bill to say we want to give this young child whose parents sent them up by themselves, give them a lawyer, help them out. prgtoken But the consequences for those of us that have spent a lot of time on the border are very clear. It means, if you make this law, that the representatives of the drug cartels, which are often gang members, they can tell the parents, Look, I know it is a tough decision whether to send your child alone, this little 3-, 5-, 8-year-old child up by themselves, but the good news is that there are people in Congress that have fought for and have gotten you a lawyer at the border for your child. prgtoken So with the drug cartels, the truth is this child will likely be an indentured servant for many years, either drug trade or sex traffic, but they are going to be owned by the drug cartel, as far as what they get to do in their freedom. This is not something we should be doing, adding more to lure more unaccompanied children up to our border. We are already in crisis mode. prgtoken As all of the Border Patrol that I have talked to over the years explained, they are basically working now for the drug cartels. As they have said, we are the logistics for the drug cartels. The cartels send them up, get them to the border, and then we ship them wherever the cartels want us to send them. prgtoken This is not as compassionate as it may seem. This is going to damage millions of people.
ACCESS TO COUNSEL ACT OF 2021
Andy Biggs (Republican, AZ) \u2014 2021-4-21

. Madam , I thank the gentleman for yielding. prgtoken When I hear that, oh, this bill simply is just trying to give a phone call, well, then why didn't it say that? Why didn't it say that in the bill? It didn't say that. It talks about access to an attorney. I am an attorney. I did court-appointed attorney work. I did it all the time. prgtoken Madam , this may not give someone a court-appointed attorney, but what it does is, you open it up. If don't think that consumes resources, then I just wonder if have ever been to a port of entry and watched people coming through and seen the secondary inspection process. prgtoken This is going to bog down your ports of entry, and it is going to lead to litigation. This is a trial lawyer's blessing, a trial lawyer's dream, I can tell you that, because that is what is going to happen. There are going to be mistakes made, and even if there aren't mistakes made, there are going to be lawsuits. prgtoken This is not designed to facilitate border ingress and egress. This is not designed to help commercial traffic. This is going to bog down our system. prgtoken While that is going on, say this is not going to be a problem. It will redirect and redeploy Border Patrol agents and Customs agents to deal with this. That means it is going to really slow things down, and everyone knows what that means. That means that all the people who are coming are going to have an even wider open field. prgtoken In February, over 101,000 aliens were encountered. In March, over 172,000 aliens were encountered at the border. The number is going up. It is not going down. It is going up. Do you know why? Because the policies of this administration draw people in. They have done absolutely nothing to slow this down. prgtoken Madam , do you know what the number one most important thing would be? How about the President of the United States of America stand up and say: No. We will send you back. Our border is closed. If you want to come in, come in legally through the ports of entry. prgtoken How about doing that? Well, he has not done that. That is why you see people showing up with campaign T-shirts on the border. That is why the Mexican President said this is 's border crisis. That is why the El Salvador President has expressed the same. And that is what Border Patrol agents also understand. prgtoken Ranchers and people in my district and those who live on the border, that is why they will say: This is 's problem. He created it. He inherited a solution and created a crisis. prgtoken The person who he has tapped to lead the efforts to address this surge at the border has been all over the place, just hasn't been at the border.
EXTENDING TEMPORARY EMERGENCY SCHEDULING OF FENTANYL ANALOGUES ACT
Earl L. "Buddy" Carter (Republican, GA) \u2014 2021-4-21

. Madam , I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. prgtoken Madam , I am here today to ask my colleagues across the aisle to set aside this weak bill and support permanently--permanently as in forever--scheduling fentanyl and its analogues. prgtoken We just heard from the gentlewoman from Texas. We all agree: It is not good. Fentanyl is the problem. prgtoken Here, we have an opportunity for us to work together to help stem the flow of deadly fentanyl and its analogues in our country. This is an issue that impacts every one of us--every one of us. Whether we are , , Independent, it impacts every one of us in our communities. prgtoken Just last week, in my home State of Georgia, the Georgia Attorney General announced that he is investigating fatal drug overdoses based on counterfeit medications laced with fentanyl and its analogues. These individuals bought illegal products they believed to be Xanax, Percocet, and oxycodone. prgtoken Overdoses like this happen every day all over the country--all over the country. Yet, some of my colleagues want to go soft on fentanyl analogues and let these products become legal in just mere weeks, or temporarily schedule it for a few months until they can craft another weak plan. prgtoken How can anyone seriously argue that a drug 50 times more potent than heroin and which almost always proves fatal when ingested, should ever be legal? prgtoken These products are manufactured illegally, and they are largely brought into the U.S. through the southern border. Every year, U.S. agents intercept enough fentanyl and its analogues to kill every single American several times over. In fact, Customs and Border Patrol announced in 2019, they had enough seized fentanyl to kill 800 million people. And that is what they had seized; we don't know what else came across. prgtoken I visited the border last week to see the crisis firsthand. Border patrol agents are so overwhelmed with a 20-year record high number of illegal immigrants that smugglers and cartels are using this as an opportunity to traffic more fentanyl substances. prgtoken If the President and Vice President would visit the border, they would be able to talk to the agents firsthand and see for themselves how serious the issue is. prgtoken Instead, they have elected to leave our border wide open. We are inviting drug traffickers to bring fentanyl substances into the country and distribute it in our streets. This should not be a partisan issue. Fentanyl does not discriminate. It does not. prgtoken The individuals manufacturing and distributing fentanyl and its analogues are criminals, and they are getting our neighbors killed. This is not an issue that is going away. It is only getting worse. The CDC reports that there were enough overdoses last year than any single year before. prgtoken This is the time for us to crack down on fentanyl-related substances, and I hope that we will do that.
Infrastructure (Executive Session)
Roy Blunt (Republican, MO) \u2014 2021-4-21

I want to talk also about infrastructure and associate myself with the interest that the country has in infrastructure. prgtoken In fact, one of the things that the government has done the longest has been roads and bridges and canals. I think, initially, the term ``internal improvements'' was, in the early 19th century, what they would have talked about when they talked about what we began to talk about later as ``infrastructure.'' During almost the entire history of the country, there was an understanding of what ``infrastructure'' meant in America. prgtoken Infrastructure is pretty popular, and infrastructure is definitely something that you generally can't do for yourself. You can't, on your own, provide the waterline that connects your house to the next house. On your own, you can't provide the road that gets you from home to work. On your own, you can't do a lot of things that we did early on and up until right now and call them infrastructure. Normally, they were seen as things like roads and bridges and dams--big projects that sometimes crossed State lines--or big projects that sometimes were just too big for a State or a town to handle, like water systems that needed to be improved. prgtoken When we did that--and I will talk later about the way we did that-- the bipartisan agreement also largely led to figuring out ways that infrastructure would pay for itself, in that the people who used the infrastructure would pay for the infrastructure, and we looked at that in a number of different ways. prgtoken Now, in the package that the administration has proposed, the $2.3 trillion package, there are lots of things in there that I don't disagree that the Senate should debate or I don't even rule out of hand that the country might want to do. Yet I think they are not infrastructure, and the funding way to get to them makes it harder to have the kind of bipartisan agreement that, I think, we could have in an infrastructure bill. The s are for it, and the are for it in the House, in the Senate. Let's talk about how to get there. prgtoken Let's also make the point, of the $213 billion in this plan that is for Green New Deal building makeovers, there may be a place to do that, and it is something that we could clearly debate, but it is not the same thing as infrastructure. I was, at one time, the chairman of the Missouri Housing Development Commission. We did a lot of things to make it possible for people to have houses or for people to have buildings that they could have an opportunity to be a part of, but we never really called it infrastructure, and we did it in a different way. prgtoken On surface transportation, generally, for decades, that was paid by the highway trust fund. How did you fund the highway trust fund? You funded the highway trust fund by people pulling up to service stations and putting fuel in their cars, and when they did that, they paid into the highway
Nomination of Vanita Gupta (Executive Session)
Lisa Murkowski (Republican, AK) \u2014 2021-4-21

I didn't come to the floor to speak to the nominee who is before us this afternoon, but following the very impassioned comments by my colleagues, in fairness, on both sides of the aisle and recognizing the vote that I just took about an hour ago to advance Vanita Gupta to this position, I will take just a moment to explain where I am coming from and why I will be supporting her final confirmation in just an hour. prgtoken I have looked at her record. I have had an extensive sitdown with her. I am impressed with not only her professional credentials but really the level of experience, but more to the comments that we just heard on the floor, the passion that she carries with her in the work that she performs. prgtoken I think it is fair to say we will all agree her confirmation has been very challenged. She has had significant back-and-forth in committee. She has been elevated with very strong rhetorical words in favor and, equally, words of condemnation. prgtoken I asked her point blank: Why do you want this? Is this worth it? Because this has been, clearly, very hard on her as a nominee. She paused and reflected a moment and just spoke to how she feels called to serve in a very personal way that I thought was impactful. prgtoken We had a long discussion about some of the issues that I care deeply about in my State as they relate to justice, access to justice, public safety, and the real tragedy that we face when it comes to women, primarily our Native women, who experience rates of domestic violence and sexual assault that are shocking, disturbing, and wrong. Despite all that we have as a State, the resources we have, the opportunities we have, we have not been able to turn the corner as we have needed to in confronting what I believe is a true scourge. prgtoken It is going to take more than resources. Jurisdictionally, it is very complicated in Alaska. We don't have reservations. We don't have similar law enforcement presence in many parts of the State that you might have in the lower 48. prgtoken We have a great deal of work to do as a State. But as we discussed these issues, I felt that I was speaking to a woman who had not only committed a professional life to try to get to the base of these injustices, to try to not just direct a little bit of money, put a program in place, walk away, and call it a day, but to truly try to make a difference. prgtoken So there are some statements that she has made in some other areas that, in fairness, I find troubling and concerning, and part of my job will be to ensure that she understands clearly how this translates into issues in my State and with our particular issues. But I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to a woman who I believe has demonstrated through her professional career to be deeply, deeply committed to matters of justice. So I will be casting my vote in support of her in about an hour here.
MOTION TO DISCHARGE
James M. Inhofe (Republican, OK) \u2014 2021-4-21

. Let my start by urging my colleagues in the Senate to vote against the motion to discharge from the Senate Armed Services Committee the nomination of Colin Kahl for Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. This is not a decision I take lightly. I have always felt that any new administration should have his team or her team, and I have generally been very supportive. prgtoken When President nominated Dr. Kahl for this position, my expectation was that, if confirmed, he and I would often disagree on policy, but we would actually get along together; we could coexist together. I quickly learned that this would really be impossible with Dr. Kahl. I don't think I have ever said that about any nominee for any position that I can recall. prgtoken My colleagues in the Senate Armed Services Committee--all 12 of them--reached the same conclusion. We opposed his nomination unanimously. That is very unusual. prgtoken Before I explain why not a single was able to support Dr. Kahl's confirmation in committee, I want to emphasize how rare this is. The Senate Armed Services Committee, as everyone knows, is extremely bipartisan, certainly in the years that I was chairing that committee with Ranking Member Jack Reed. We got along famously. We got things done that other people couldn't get done. prgtoken The Senate Armed Services Committee has always been bipartisan. We have disagreements, of course, but s and on the committee have a legacy of consensus. National security and taking care of our troops are bipartisan concerns. This is how we succeeded in passing the National Defense Authorization Act. prgtoken The National Defense Authorization Act is the largest bill every year. It is the one where it sets out the guidelines for the coming year, and it is the one where we always have gotten along. We passed it every year for 60 consecutive years. It shows and demonstrates very clearly how well we get along. prgtoken The Department deserves a nominee with bipartisan credibility. You have to keep in mind this position is the No. 3 position in the Pentagon. It represents our shared bipartisan vision of effective national security and healthy civil-military relations. prgtoken This position demands a nominee who can carry out the President's policies while engaging those who disagree in good faith. That isn't the case with this nominee. That is why we are faced with this vote today. prgtoken I also want to clear up a common misunderstanding. s on the committee did not vote against Dr. Kahl simply because we disagreed with his policy views. Policy is what that position is. It is the policy position of the Pentagon. This should be obvious to anyone who paid attention to the confirmation of President 's nominees for Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary. We got through both of them quickly. I don't remember a time when any new administration got the two very significant posi
Infrastructure (Executive Session)
Cynthia M. Lummis (Republican, WY) \u2014 2021-4-21

I rise to echo and augment the remarks of the gentleman from Missouri and to call on President and the in Congress to work with the s on a bipartisan infrastructure bill. As the only Senator in the unique position of sitting on all three committees with jurisdiction over transportation, I have a particular interest in making sure we are adequately funding our roads and bridges. prgtoken I have had many conversations with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle since I have joined the Senate, and everyone agrees that we have real infrastructure and transportation needs that must be addressed. The American Society of Civil Engineers recently gave our roads a D- minus rating, noting our $786 billion backlog on roads' and bridges' capital needs. They gave our bridges a C-minus rating and a repair tag of $125 billion. prgtoken We also need to take another look at how we fund our highway system. Right now, we have a highway trust fund that we can't actually trust. Since 2008, we have been relying on general fund transfers to pay for our roads and bridges instead of fixing our user fee model to keep the trust fund solvent. User fees give users the benefit of seeing where their money is going, and they allow those people deriving the most benefit from the system to give the most in support. This is a very fair, American way of doing things, and the certainty we get from a functioning user fee model is important for rural States, like my home State of Wyoming. prgtoken While much divides Congress these days, infrastructure, as that term is understood by most Americans, is a bipartisan issue. As such, one would assume that President would want to find some common ground in order to build relationships in Congress and address the needs of every citizen. So it is perplexing that President , who campaigned on bringing our Nation together, is now pushing a blatantly partisan infrastructure bill. prgtoken Let me show you why partisanship is unnecessary in the infrastructure space. I recently helped my ic colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee pass a bipartisan water and wastewater infrastructure bill out of committee with unanimous support. This is clear evidence that and s can come together on infrastructure issues and find common ground. In 2019, the EPW Committee, under the leadership of my fellow Senator from Wyoming, John Barrasso, unanimously passed a bipartisan 5-year highway funding bill. This would be a great place to start for any infrastructure bill in Congress. prgtoken But this barely scratches the surface of bipartisan infrastructure legislation. Honestly, I am hard-pressed to remember a time when infrastructure was not bipartisan. The American Water Infrastructure Act of 2018? Bipartisan. The Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016? Bipartisan. The Highway Transportation Funding Act of 2
NOMINATION OF COLIN HACKETT KAHL
Marsha Blackburn (Republican, TN) \u2014 2021-4-21

here we are again, teeing up another discharge motion for another unqualified administration nominee. prgtoken If there is one good thing I can say about Colin Kahl, the nominee for Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, it is that you never have to wonder where he stands on the issues. He is very consistent. prgtoken Unfortunately, he has been consistently wrong on some of the last decade's most important foreign policy questions. prgtoken In 2019, when disaster struck all along on our southern border, he labeled the situation ``'s fake border crisis'' and ``a phony terrorism threat.'' That is a take that aged well, to be sure. prgtoken His judgment calls on the actions and motivations of our most dangerous adversaries have also been particularly terrible. prgtoken When President warned the Iranian regime not to resume their nuclear activities, Kahl declared that ``war drums'' were already sounding. We know that wasn't true. prgtoken When President made the decision to eliminate terrorist leader Soleimani, Kahl was positive that the strike had started a war. It hadn't. When I questioned Kahl during his confirmation hearings, he equated Iranian proxies killing Americans with our subsequent, proportionate strike against Solemani, saying, ``There were provocations on both sides.'' Indeed. prgtoken Kahl was absolutely sure that given the chance, John Bolton, of all people, would twist available intelligence and singlehandedly start wars with Iran and North Korea. Another miss. prgtoken He also predicted that would jump into Syria and start a war with Assad and the Russians, which also didn't happen. prgtoken Those hot takes earned him a lot of ink in Foreign Policy magazine but not a lot of respect. I don't know if he wrote those things because he wanted to put President in the hot seat or because he honestly believed them, but I don't think the answer to that question matters. prgtoken If he believed them, then it is proof of his terrible judgment. prgtoken If he wrote them to inflame the progressive base, it is proof he is willing to trivialize the prospect of armed conflict for clicks. prgtoken How in the world can President expect us to vote for that? prgtoken In addition to his poor judgment, Mr. Kahl has also attached himself to truly terrible policy decisions. prgtoken He opposed bipartisan legislation that would have imposed sanctions on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. prgtoken He staffed the effort to condemn Israel at the United Nations Security Council. prgtoken He is ``open'' to moving away from the nuclear triad. prgtoken Perhaps worst of all, when he served in the administration as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, he dropped the ball on a status of forces agreement that would have allowed U.S. forces to remain in Iraq. prgtoken That failure led to the rise of ISIS. prgtoken I have examined Mr. Kahl's record and found nothing but