mesut/congress_speeches huggingface dataset:
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
Bill Cassidy (Republican, LA) \u2014 2020-2-4

the Senate must determine whether to remove a President duly elected by the people. A decision of such magnitude deserves, first, full consideration of the procedures; second, the merits of the charges; and third, the ramifications removal would have on our Republic. prgtoken The Framers of the Constitution granted the House of Representatives impeachment powers yet cautioned against using that power unless absolutely necessary. Impeachment negates an election in which Americans choose their leader. If substantial numbers of Americans disagree with removing the President, removal damages civic society. It follows that the House should conduct thorough and complete investigations, even if time-consuming, before impeaching. prgtoken A thorough investigation educates Americans that a President should be impeached and removed. Failing to convince the people invites anger towards, disdain for, and abandonment of the democratic process. prgtoken The Framers also required a two-thirds Senate majority for removal to prevent partisanship, so that removal only occurs after the House convinces its own Members, the Senate, and the American people. The Watergate investigation, for example, convinced Americans that President Nixon committed crimes, forcing his resignation with overwhelming support for removal in the House and the Senate. prgtoken In the case against President , the House declined to call witnesses it felt relevant, arguing that the courts would take too long and the President was an imminent threat to our Republic. House managers blamed legal resistance from the administration and witnesses. For example, Dr. Charles Kupperman threatened to sue. A congressional committee afraid of being sued while claiming to be fearlessly pursuing truth for the good of the country rings hollow. It also rang hollow when Adam Schiff said that we could not wait for the next election for voters to decide President 's fate after Nancy Pelosi held the articles for 37 days. That decision smacks of partisan political motivations. prgtoken The partisanship the Founders warned against was reflected in the House vote with the only bipartisan votes being against impeachment. House Managers Schiff, Nadler, and Lofgren once said that party-line impeachment would divide the Nation. They never explained why their opinions changed. prgtoken The role of the Senate, though, is to judge the House's evidence. House managers stated their case was ``overwhelming'' and ``compelling.'' Having not pursued further witness testimony in building their case, the House managers demanded the Senate call witnesses the House did not call. prgtoken Additional witnesses, however, would not have changed material facts, but allowing the House to poorly develop a case, sacrificing thoroughness for political timing, would have forever changed the dynamic of the Chambers respective to the role of each in the impeachment process. Should
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
John Thune (Republican, SD) \u2014 2020-2-4

tomorrow we will be voting on the two impeachment articles sent over to us by the House of Representatives, a process, as the leader pointed out, that really started from the very day this President took office. prgtoken I will be voting to acquit the President for several reasons. First and foremost, I do not believe the facts in this case rise to the high bar that the Founders set for removal from office. The Founders imposed a threshold for impeachment of ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors''--in other words, very serious violations of the public trust. prgtoken The Founders were deliberate in their choice of words. They wanted to be clear that impeachment was a severe remedy to be deployed only for very serious violations. When George Mason proposed adding the term ``maladministration'' to the impeachment clause during the Constitutional Convention, the Framers rejected the proposal because, as Madison pointed out, the term was too vague and would be ``equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.'' prgtoken The Founders recognized that without safeguards, impeachment could quickly degenerate into a political weapon to be used to turn over elections when one faction or another decided they didn't like the President. That is why the Founders split the impeachment power, giving the House the sole authority to impeach and the Senate the sole authority to try impeachments. As a final check, the Founders required a two-thirds supermajority vote in the Senate to remove a President from office. All of these things show just how seriously the Founders regarded removing a duly elected President. They intended it as an extreme remedy to be used only in very grave circumstances. prgtoken I do not believe that the charges the House has leveled against the President meet that high bar. The House managers' presentation, which stretched over 22 hours, included testimony from more than a dozen witnesses. We also heard from the House managers during more than 16 hours of questions from Senators--in all, about 180 questions--and we received more than 28,000 pages of testimony, evidence, and arguments from the House of Representatives. prgtoken I considered all the evidence carefully, but ultimately I concluded that the two charges presented by the House managers--abuse of power and obstruction of Congress--did not provide a compelling case for removing this President. prgtoken According to public reporting, House toyed with charging the President with bribery, believing that it polled well, but they didn't have the evidence to prove that charge or, indeed, to prove any actual crime. prgtoken While allegations of specific criminal conduct may not be constitutionally required, they anchor impeachment in the law, and their absence is telling. Lacking evidence of a specific crime, the House decided to use the shotgun approach and throw everything under the catchall ``abus
IMPEACHMENT
Mitch McConnell (Republican, KY) \u2014 2020-2-4

these past weeks, the Senate has grappled with as grave a subject as we ever consider: a request from a majority of the House to remove the President. The Framers took impeachment extremely seriously, but they harbored no illusions that these trials would always begin for the right reasons. prgtoken Alexander Hamilton warned that ``the demon of faction'' would ``extend his sceptre'' over the House of Representatives ``at certain seasons.'' He warned that ``an intemperate or designing majority of the House'' might misuse impeachment as a weapon of ordinary politics rather than emergency tool of last resort. The Framers knew impeachments might begin with overheated passions and short-term factualism. But they knew those things could not get the final say, so they placed the ultimate judgment not in the fractious lower Chamber but in the sober and stable Senate. prgtoken They wanted impeachment trials to be fair to both sides. They wanted them to be timely, avoiding the ``procrastinated determination of the charges.'' They wanted us to take a deep breath and decide which outcome would reflect the facts, protect our institutions, and advance the common good. They called the Senate ``the most fit depositary of this important trust.'' Tomorrow, we will know whether that trust was well-placed. prgtoken The drive to impeach President did not begin with the allegations before us. Here was reporting in April of 2016, before the President was the nominee: `` isn't even the nominee yet . . . [but] `Impeachment' is already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress.'' prgtoken Here was the Washington Post headline minutes after President 's inauguration: ``The campaign to impeach President has begun,'' the Washington Post says. prgtoken The Articles of Impeachment before us were not even the first ones House introduced. This was go-around number, roughly, seven. Those previously alleged high crimes and misdemeanors included things like being impolite to the press and to professional athletes. It insults the intelligence of the American people to pretend this was a solemn process reluctantly begun because of withheld foreign aid. No, Washington ' position on this President has been clear literally for years. Their position was obvious when they openly rooted for the Mueller investigation to tear our country apart and were disappointed when the facts proved otherwise. It was obvious when they sought to impeach the President over and over. prgtoken Here is their real position: Washington think President committed a high crime prgtoken or misdemeanor the moment he defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. That is the original sin of this Presidency: that he won and they lost. prgtoken Ever since, the Nation has suffered through a grinding campaign against our norms
RECOGNIZING L.F. ``SANDY'' SAMS, JR.
Trent Kelly (Republican, MS) \u2014 2020-2-4

. Madam , I rise today to celebrate L.F. ``Sandy'' Sams, Jr who is retiring after a successful career at the Mitchell, McNutt & Sams law firm in Tupelo, Mississippi. Sandy is a lifelong Mississippian who was born in Meridian, Mississippi, and later moved to West Point, Mississippi. After high school, he attended the University of Mississippi for undergrad and then returned to the University for Law School, where he graduated with honors. Sandy served our Nation in the United States Army as an Assistant Staff Judge Advocate in the U.S. Army XVIII Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. After his service, he returned to West Point to practice law. In 1971, he officially began his career in Tupelo with the Mitchell McNutt law firm. Sandy Sams is a remarkable Mississippian, and it is individuals like him that make Mississippi and America great. I wish him all the best in his well-deserved retirement.
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
Susan M. Collins (Republican, ME) \u2014 2020-2-4

for more than 200 years after our Constitution was adopted, only one President faced an impeachment trial before the Senate. That was Andrew Johnson in 1868. But now we are concluding our second impeachment trial in just 21 years. prgtoken While each case must stand on its own facts, this trend reflects the increasingly acrimonious partisanship facing our Nation. The Founders warned against excessive partisanship, fearing that it would lead to ``instability, injustice, and confusion,'' ultimately posing a mortal threat to our free government. prgtoken To protect against this, the Founders constructed an elaborate system of checks and balances to prevent ``factions'' from sacrificing ``both the public good and the rights of other citizens.'' Impeachment is part of that elaborate system. The Founders set a very high bar for its use, requiring that the President may only be removed by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. prgtoken The Framers recognized that in removing a sitting President, we would be acting against not only the officeholder but also the voters who entrusted him with that position. Thus, the Senate must consider whether misconduct occurred, its nature, and the traumatic and disruptive impact that removing a duly elected President would have on our Nation. prgtoken In the trial of President Clinton, I argued that in order to convict, ``we must conclude from the evidence presented to us with no room for doubt that our Constitution will be injured and our democracy suffer should the President remain in office one moment more.'' The House managers adopted a similar threshold when they argued that President 's conduct is so dangerous that he ``must not remain in power one moment longer.'' prgtoken The point is, impeachment of a President should be reserved for conduct that poses such a serious threat to our governmental institutions as to warrant the extreme step of immediate removal from office. I voted to acquit President Clinton, even though the House managers proved to my satisfaction that he did commit a crime, because his conduct did not meet that threshold. prgtoken I will now discuss each of the articles. prgtoken In its first Article of Impeachment against President , the House asserts that the President abused the power of his Presidency. While there are gaps in the record, some key facts are not disputed. prgtoken It is clear from the July 25, 2019, phone call between President and Ukrainian President Zelensky that the investigation into the s' activities requested by President was improper and demonstrated very poor judgment. prgtoken There is conflicting evidence in the record about the President's motivation for this improper request. The House managers stated repeatedly that President 's actions were motivated ``solely'' for his own political gain in the 2020 campaign. Yet the President's attorneys argued that the President had sound public polic
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
Joni Ernst (Republican, IA) \u2014 2020-2-4

I want to first thank the House managers and the counsel for the President for their time and their hard work and patience these past few weeks. prgtoken Yes, folks, we have had a robust and at times a rancorous trial. Some days I left here feeling angry, and some days I left more hopeful. Frankly, it is likely that many Americans--and in my case, Iowans--from every political stripe will feel hurt by this process at some level. But we are all representatives of the ideals and beliefs of the people we are here to represent. prgtoken Like all of you, I have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, and I take that oath very seriously. There have been a lot of arguments presented about what the Constitution says regarding the threshold for impeaching a President. It is clear to me that the Constitution goes out of its way to make it a high bar for removing the President. This is because the Founders were rightfully concerned that impeachment might be used to upend the electoral will of the American people. Absent restraint, the impeachment process would be all too tempting for those who oppose a sitting President to simply use it as a tool to achieve political advantage. prgtoken Each of us had one job--one job--during this process: to decide, based on the evidence, whether the President committed an impeachable offense. Upon reviewing the record containing the testimony of 17 witnesses and over 28,000 pages, as well as hearing from both sides on their arguments presented throughout this process, I will vote against both Articles of Impeachment. prgtoken The arguments of the House managers simply did not demonstrate that the President's actions rise to an impeachable offense. Given the constitutional requirements, voting any other way on these articles would remove the ability of the American people to make their own decision at the ballot box in November. prgtoken This process was fraught from the start with political aims and partisan innuendos that simply cannot be overlooked. prgtoken The House managers' arguments have argued that the American people cannot be trusted to render their own judgment on this President. I reject this premise and the complete distrust of the American people with everything in my heart. To do this would set a new and dangerous precedent in American history. prgtoken As we sit here today, we believe we are experiencing a unique and historical event; however, if the case presented by the House of Representatives is allowed to be the basis for the removal of this President, I am afraid that impeachment will become just another tool used by those who play partisan politics. This is not what the Founders intended, and this is a very dark path to go down. prgtoken Under the Constitution, impeachment wasn't designed to be a litmus test on every action of the President's; elections were designed to be that check. Further, the issue of foreign affairs has historically been fra
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
Deb Fischer (Republican, NE) \u2014 2020-2-4

I rise to voice my opposition to these Articles of Impeachment. I want the people of Nebraska to know how I will vote and why, as the Senate prepares for the trial's final vote. prgtoken I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and I have a responsibility to be an impartial juror during the trial. prgtoken I have given fair and careful consideration to the evidence presented during this trial, and I have engaged in the questioning process. This is a process that should be about facts and fairness, and that is what the Senate has done its very best to do, but the reality is that the House of Representatives didn't do its job. prgtoken Under the Constitution and by precedent, the impeachment investigation is the responsibility of the House, not the Senate. Hearings in the House inquiry during the Nixon impeachment investigation lasted for 14 months. The Clinton impeachment House inquiry relied on years of prior investigation and overwhelming amounts of testimony from firsthand witnesses. President 's inquiry in the House was deeply partisan, and it lasted only 12 weeks. prgtoken Disturbingly, there was a lack of due process during this House investigation. The President was not allowed to have his lawyers cross- examine witnesses at the House Intelligence Committee hearings and depositions. This is the committee that was the lead on the investigative hearings. Shockingly, the President of the United States was prevented from participating in the House's impeachment for 71 of the 78 days of investigation. Our founding document protects the right of the accused. The Constitution explicitly states that no one should ``be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'' Our blueprint for freedom protects all individuals' rights, whether that person is a truckdriver, a farmer, a businesswoman, or the President of the United States. prgtoken The third branch of government--our court system--is of foundational importance, and we have it for a reason. That reason is to provide every American with the opportunity to have justice in a fair way in accordance with the Constitution and the rule of law. But because House were in a rush to impeach the President before their holiday break, they decided to abandon the courts completely. prgtoken It was the House's constitutional right to subpoena witnesses. It was the President's constitutional right to assert privilege. And it was the court's constitutional right to enforce subpoenas. The House did not petition the court to enforce subpoenas. Short-circuiting the process led to an incomplete investigation by the House. prgtoken Article 1, section 3 of the Constitution provides that ``the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.'' If the Senate were to become the factfinder in an impeachment investigation, it would completely change the role of the Senate from this point forward, this hallowed Chamber, the world's
HONORING OFFICER JASON DOBBINS
Jim Banks (Republican, IN) \u2014 2020-2-4

I rise today to honor the life of Police Officer Jason Dobbins. prgtoken Sixteen years ago, Officer Dobbins began working in law enforcement. In 2012, he transferred to the Warsaw Police Department, where he followed in the footsteps of his father, Ted, who also served as a police officer in the City of Warsaw for 20 years. prgtoken In the wake of his tragic passing last Saturday, Officer Dobbins is mourned by the Warsaw Police Department, and by the whole of Warsaw, who remember him as a great leader, father, and friend. prgtoken And as Warsaw Mayor Joe Thallemer told me just earlier today in a text message, he said, ``The overwhelming, immediate outpouring of support is testimony to his commitment to the well-being of the Warsaw community. His legacy of service lives on.'' prgtoken It is people like Jason Dobbins who embody the very best of what our Nation has to offer. prgtoken I offer my deepest condolences to his wife, his son, his three daughters, and his stepson in this sad time, and I pray that they may find peace.
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
Ted Cruz (Republican, TX) \u2014 2020-2-4

tomorrow afternoon, the Senate will vote to acquit President in these impeachment proceedings. That is the right thing to do. That is the decision that comports with both the facts and the law. prgtoken These impeachment proceedings began in the House of Representatives in a thoroughly partisan affair, driven by House , without allowing the President to participate in cross-examining witnesses and calling defense witnesses. prgtoken When the matter came to the Senate, the Senate was obligated to do much better. We had an obligation under the Constitution to conduct a fair trial, and that is what the Senate has done. Over the course of the last 2 weeks, we have heard hour upon hour upon hour of argument. The House proceeding heard testimony from 18 different witnesses. The Senate saw 193 video clips of witness testimony presented here on the Senate floor. The Senate posed 180 separate questions from Senators to the House managers or the White House defense team. Within the record were over 28,000 pages of documents, including the single most important evidence in this case, which is the actual transcript of the conversation at issue between President and the President of Ukraine. The administration, to the astonishment of everyone, declassified that transcript and released it to the world so that we can read precisely what was said in that conversation. prgtoken The reason acquittal is the right decision is that the House managers failed to prove their case. They failed to demonstrate that they satisfied the constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. The text of the Constitution provides that a President may be impeached for ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The House managers fell woefully short of that standard. Indeed, in the Articles of Impeachment they sent over here, they don't allege any crime whatsoever. They don't even allege a single Federal law that the President violated. prgtoken An awful lot of Americans looking at these proceedings have heard a lot of noise, have heard a lot of screaming, but are left wondering, What was this all about? prgtoken If you examine the substance, there are two things that the House managers allege the President did wrong. One, they allege that the President wrongfully delayed aid to Ukraine, and, two, they allege that the President wrongfully asked for an investigation into a political rival. Both of those are legitimate ends. prgtoken Let me address them one at a time because there is a deep irony in the argument of the House managers. Both of those objectives are consistent with law, are permissible and legal, and both of those objectives have been done, by any measure, substantially worse by the preceding administration, by the administration. prgtoken Let's take delaying aid to Ukraine. I am a big believer in America standing with Ukraine. Indeed, I traveled to Ukraine. I wen