Translate Politics: Congress in plain language.

“I want the Senate to pass this bill. Utah is facing terrible wildfires, and controlled burns help stop them. Right now, clean air laws can penalize states for the smoke from these controlled burns, even though the burns prevent bigger fires and more smoke later. This bill fixes that problem.”

“Mr. President, I, too, would like to give my colleagues a shout-out. Senator Padilla and Senator Merkley, thank you for being down here on the floor with me for this first UC of my Senate career. More importantly, thank you for your work on this bill. And a shout-out to our colleagues. We share this commonality of Western State, and it is no secret that just as I speak today, Utah is in the midst of one of our worst fire seasons--over 1,200 fires over half a million acres in our State. And with these fires come devastating floods and other consequences. And every day the threat to our communities and our lands grows substantially more severe. That is why it makes sense to not leave a critical tool like these controlled burns off the table. You both have described how well these prescribed burns help us channel and focus these forest fires. The data, as presented to me by the Forest Service, is clear: Wildfire prevention and containment are more successful in areas where prescribed burns took place. Yet States that proactively use prescribed burns can face regulatory consequences for the temporary emissions created by the very work that prevents far greater emissions in our environment. Our bill, the Wildfire Emissions Prevention Act, provides States with greater certainty by ensuring that prescribed fires and other wildfire mitigation activities can be treated as exceptional events under the Clean Air Act. The people of Utah are not looking for an emissions loophole. They are looking to protect their families, communities, and land. This is about recognizing that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We have alluded to it today, all of us have. This bill passed through our Environment and Public Works Committee 19 to 0. This is exactly what people back home want us to do, to work up these bipartisan solutions. This reflects something I think we can all agree on: States should not be punished for taking responsible action to prevent catastrophic wildfires. I appreciate our chairman and ranking member--once again, Senators Merkley, Padilla, also Senators Boozman, Kelly. Thank you for your work on this legislation. I also urge my House colleagues to support WEPA and help us get this commonsense legislation across the finish line. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 620, S. 5045.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 4 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I am asking the Senate to set a vote for 7 p.m. today on whether to pull this resolution out of committee.”

“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if Senator Van Hollen or his designee makes a motion to discharge S. Res. 852 from the Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate vote on the motion to discharge at 7 p.m. today.”

“I object to this request. Presidents from both parties have used public service announcements for decades, and Democrats did not complain then. Reminding people that American freedom is better than communism is patriotic. If the Senate wants rules about these announcements, we should debate that in committee, not block this one President.”

“Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the message at the heart of these PSAs is a simple one: American values are worth defending against the failed ideologies of communism and socialism. If that is what has the Senator from New Hampshire concerned, I would suggest the concern says more about her side of the aisle than it does about the PSA. Presidents of both parties have used public service announcements to speak directly to the American people for decades. Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt did it in World War I and World War II. Bill Clinton launched a national anti-drug campaign. George W. Bush bought Super Bowl air time. Barack Obama promoted ObamaCare. Joe Biden ran PSAs on vaccinations. I don’t recall a single Democrat rushing to the floor to object to any of them. The only difference I can find is the message. When a Democratic President tells Americans what to do, it is a public service. When this President tells Americans that liberty is worth defending, it is suddenly a problem. A reminder that freedom beats communism and socialism is patriotic, and no Member of this body should be offended by it. If Senators want to debate how the government communicates with the public, let’s do it the right way: through regular order, in committee, with hearings, and with one standard applied to every administration-- not by unanimous consent aimed at a single President’s message. For these reasons, I object.”

“I want Congress to pass this bill to ban members from buying individual stocks. Members of Congress learn secret information through their work, and they should not use it to make money. Letting lawmakers trade stocks hurts the public's trust, and 86 percent of Americans want us to stop it.”

“Mr. President, 86 percent--86 percent. I am here today to reiterate my support for the Stop Insider Trading Act and urge my colleagues to support this important bill. Recent polling suggests that 86 percent of the American people support this bill. You see, in order to make the best possible policy decisions, Members of Congress are provided access to information that most Americans are not. We receive briefings. We write legislation. We serve on committees of jurisdiction over major sections of our economy. But serving as a Member of Congress comes with a responsibility to put public interests ahead of personal gain. We have an obligation to put the interests of the people we represent ahead of our own interests. No Member of Congress should profit from insider information. There is a reason that can be difficult: Members who write the rules are also subject to them. Allowing Members to actively trade individual stocks creates an obvious conflict of interest. Even when no law is broken, the appearance of a conflict is damaging. It is damaging to this institution. It is damaging to public trust. It is damaging to our Republic. You know, it is leadership 101: Avoid the appearance of impropriety. Without a doubt, some serving in Congress today benefit financially from the current system, but that should not prevent Congress from supporting a change that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe is needed and necessary. It bears repeating: Recent polling shows that 86 percent of Americans favor banning Members of Congress from trading stocks. Eighty-seven percent of Republicans, 88 percent of Democrats, and 81 percent of Independents support banning Members of Congress from trading stocks. Republicans and Democrats disagree on so many issues these days, but Americans across the political spectrum agree that their elected representatives should not be able to use the privileges of public office for personal financial gain. This sentiment is echoed across Indiana, I know. I regularly hear from Hoosiers who are troubled about those serving in Congress profiting from their positions. Here is the bottom line: The American people should not have to wonder whether votes in Congress are influenced by what is best for the country or by what is best for the investment portfolios of those serving in Congress. The Stop Insider Trading Act will help ensure that Congress plays by the same rules as everyone else. It would prevent Members of Congress, their spouses, and their dependent children from purchasing individual stocks and strengthen disclosure and enforcement requirements. This legislation is a step in the right direction, and it is what the people we represent want us to do. Trust in Congress remains at an alltime low. Passing this bill supported by 86 percent of the American people will help restore some level of trust in Congress and those who serve. Let’s do the right thing. Let’s support this 86 percent solution, and let’s put an end to swamp trading today. I yield the floor.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 8 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I want the Senate to vote against this resolution. It unfairly blames Israel and tries to cut off military aid to our ally. The government is already looking into the deaths of Americans, but this resolution ignores Palestinian groups that pay rewards to terrorists.”

“Mr. President, I am here to address the resolution put forward by Senator Van Hollen. This is a misguided resolution. The Democrats are trying to distort reality for political gain. Make no mistake, the sole objective here is not justice or accountability for Americans, it is to cut off security aid to our ally Israel in its time of need. Of course, any loss, all loss of American life is a tragedy, and Ambassador Huckabee has called for an investigation into these deaths, and I am very confident this administration will get to the bottom of this issue. But this one-sided resolution shames one of our strongest allies and minimizes the Palestinian Authority’s role in inciting terrorist violence, including against Americans, through their horrific ``pay for slay’’ program, which unbelievably rewards terrorists with up to $200 million a year. Rather than any serious attempt at accountability or justice, this is sadly another cynical ploy by Democrats to isolate our closest ally in the region and to turn Israel’s righteous war of self-defense into a domestic political issue as we are now just a little over 30 days from election. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution so we can stand with our ally Israel as they beat back the scourge of Iranian-backed terrorism. I yield the floor.”

“I want the Senate to pass my bill right now. It freezes American aid to Palestinian governing groups until they stop human rights abuses, reject terrorism, and recognize Israel. We should not send taxpayer dollars to groups that harm Americans or our allies.”

“Mr. President, it should not be controversial to say that Congress should know the circumstances of the deaths of our own citizens abroad in any country. It should be equally uncontroversial to say, in the spirit of transparency and oversight, that Congress must also be aware of human rights abuses anywhere abroad where billions of taxpayer dollars have been sent over the years. Since 1993, the United States has provided $7.8 billion in bilateral assistance to the West Bank and Gaza. As Washington throws money every which way, Congress must at least ensure that those taxpayer dollars advance our core interests, let alone not reward those who seek to harm us or our allies. Yet, despite American generosity, human rights abuses in the West Bank and Gaza, committed by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and other groups, have been well documented over the years. In 2024, the State Department reported that Palestinian Authority officials engaged in unlawful or arbitrary killings, torture, arbitrary arrests, severe restrictions on the freedom of expression, persecution of journalists, and the recruitment or use of children in armed conflict and much more. Of course, we can never forget the brutal attack perpetrated by Hamas on October 7, 2023, which killed some 1,200 innocent men, women, and children--among them, 46 citizens. A further 254 people were taken hostage, including 12 Americans, who endured unimaginable conditions. One U.S.-Israeli citizen, Edan Alexander, survived 584 days in captivity and upon his release vowed to return to Israel to continue his service in the IDF, saying: Such acts of courage should inspire Congress to ensure that not one more taxpayer dime ever again goes to Palestinian governing entities that engage in human rights abuses and that directly threaten support or turn a blind eye to groups that target American citizens. My bill is simple. It requires Palestinian governing entities to meet certain commonsense conditions before they receive any additional American assistance. Under my bill, U.S. foreign assistance to any Palestinian Government entity or international organization operating in the West Bank or Gaza which is funded by taxpayer dollars would be frozen unless said government entity meets some commonsense conditions. Namely, they must recognize the State of Israel, renounce terrorism and the October 7 attacks, remove individuals with terrorist ties from their security services, terminate all funding for anti-American and anti-Israel incitement, and honor previously agreed diplomatic agreements. My bill would also strengthen congressional oversight by requiring that the State Department provide to Congress a report on human rights practices in the West Bank and Gaza and examine whether the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, or any other Palestinian governing entity continues to commit human rights abuses. Funding Palestinian entities that do not recognize Israel’s right to exist and fund anti-American and anti-Israel activities makes no sense. At its core, this legislation establishes a principle of accountability. American taxpayers should know where their money is going, Congress should be able to oversee how it is being used, and foreign entities receiving the benefits of American assistance should be expected to meet clearly articulated standards. I therefore ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, which is at the desk. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.”