mesut/congress_speeches huggingface dataset:
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
John Cornyn (Republican, TX) \u2014 2017-3-29

let me just say while the Senator is on the floor that I express my admiration once again for the distinguished Senator from Utah, who is my good friend and in many ways is a mentor as the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. I am privileged to be a member of that committee and to work with him and, of course, on the Judiciary Committee as well. in particular for his leadership on this resolution of disapproval, and I support his position 100 percent. Nomination of Neil Gorsuch prgtoken As we all know now, , this Chamber will consider the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to serve as the next Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. prgtoken Yesterday I spoke a little bit about his qualifications, his background, and his temperament. During the 20 hours of hearings we held before the Judiciary Committee, I think people saw the real Neil Gorsuch--somebody who, again, by virtue of his qualifications, his education, his training, and his experience is supremely qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. He did pass every single test with flying colors, even as my colleagues and some activist groups have done their best to find ways to object to what may be one of the most qualified candidates for the Court in our Nation's history. prgtoken One argument we have heard from the opponents of the nominee in 3 days of grueling hearings was that he failed to convey his approach to judging--how he would approach the job. I would like to point out that that is simply not the case. Judge Gorsuch made clear that the text of the statute, the text of the Constitution, and the text of a precedent would guide his judging and would be the place where he starts in deciding any case. As he has repeatedly written and stated publicly, the job of a good judge is to understand what the law means and to interpret what lawmakers have done. prgtoken I know some of our colleagues and some of the activist groups who are critical of Judge Gorsuch are upset that he doesn't believe in a living Constitution--in other words, that the Constitution, as written and ratified by the States, does not mean what it says, and that judges have a license to interpret the words in a way to pursue some other purpose, some other agenda, political or personal or the like. prgtoken Judge Gorsuch rejects that approach, and rightly so. Indeed, how can a judge claim to bear allegiance to the Constitution if he doesn't actually start in interpreting the Constitution by reading the text of the words? What would a judge decide on if not the text and the original meaning? prgtoken To that effect, I received a letter from a friend of mine and an expert in this area, Bryan Garner, last week. Bryan is a well-known lawyer and writer and, among many impressive accomplishments, he is a distinguished research professor of law at Southern prgtoken Methodist University in Dallas, TX. Bryan has written extensively o
WELCOMING REVEREND ROBERT DILLINGHAM
John Shimkus (Republican, IL) \u2014 2017-3-29

I rise today to honor Reverend Robert Dillingham who led us in the opening prayer. He is a pastor in the Illinois Great Rivers Conference of the United Methodist Church where he serves Farina, Illinois. prgtoken Reverend Dillingham is both a chaplain and a volunteer firefighter with the Farina Fire Department and is also a chaplain with the Mutual Aid Box Alarm System, division 54. He serves as a hospice chaplain with the Hospital Sisters Health Systems through St. Anthony's Memorial Hospital in Effingham, Illinois, where he serves patients from over 20 counties in the central part of my congressional district. prgtoken In addition to his service as chaplain, Reverend Dillingham is also on the board of the Farina food pantry and is a clergy care guide, where he is a pastoral presence in the lives of over 70 pastors. prgtoken It is my honor to welcome Reverend Dillingham and his wife, Ashley, who is in the gallery today, and personally thank him for offering this morning's prayer.
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1431, EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD REFORM ACT OF 2017
Randy K. Weber, Sr. (Republican, TX) \u2014 2017-3-29

I do rise today in support of H.R. 1430, and I appreciate the primer that we were just given from the other side on what an emergency is. prgtoken I would remind my good friend on the other side that, on November 8, 2016, the Americans stood up and said: We have an emergency. We need to change directions. And they elected to be President to do just that. So that is a good reminder. prgtoken , our constituents have a right to know whether or not EPA regulations are based on sound science and if they benefit the American people. prgtoken Keeping in the vein with what I just said, we have a better way. Paul Ryan has put out his plan for A Better Way. has been elected for that better way. The American people deserve a better way. prgtoken This is called the HONEST Act, which I am proud to be a cosponsor of. It is a better way. It is simple and straightforward. It is a message to government bureaucrats they cannot propose costly new regulations without providing sufficient transparency. As my good friend from Washington said: Why would anybody be opposed to transparency and a right for the American public to know? prgtoken Opponents of this bill apparently think Americans do not deserve to know the truth, not to mention the ``science'' behind EPA burdensome regulations. prgtoken Trust me when I say Americans deserve the truth from the very start. prgtoken , EPA's regulatory agenda should not require secret science, much less 30-year-old data, in order to sell it to the American people. The other side likes to claim that there are a lot of scientists behind this climate change theory, but they won't release that data. prgtoken So what are they hiding behind? prgtoken By the way, I remember Mark Twain said that sometimes the majority simply means that all the fools are on one side. prgtoken , it is long past time for Congress to increase the transparency of the EPA. This HONEST Act will do exactly that by prohibiting the EPA from proposing or finalizing regulations based upon data that is either outdated, it is not transparent, nor is it publicly available for review. prgtoken , I thank Chairman Smith for bringing this important legislation to the floor today, and I thank the fine gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Newhouse).
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
James Lankford (Republican, OK) \u2014 2017-3-29

there has been a long conversation about a Supreme Court Justice. Quite frankly, there should be a long conversation. It is an incredibly important role of the Senate for advice and consent. We are talking about a Supreme Court Justice as someone who serves on the Court for life, so it has to be right. prgtoken A long conversation about Neil Gorsuch is coming to a head. In the next week, he will come to this floor. He will face final debate, and the very long confirmation process will end with him joining the Supreme Court as the ninth Justice. When he is added on as an Associate Justice, it won't have been a short journey. He has met with every single Senator face to face. He has made all the time available that they wanted to have for face-to-face questions and to be able to go through those issues personally. He has been in very long hearings. He sat down hour after hour, multiple days, answering questions from Senators in the Judiciary Committee, then a vote from the Judiciary Committee, and then coming to this floor. There has been research in his background in every case. Everything he has ever written and every speech he has ever given has been examined overwhelmingly. And at the end of that, he has been found to be a very serious member of the judiciary. prgtoken In this body in 2006, he was put on the Tenth Circuit, a circuit that Oklahoma happens to be in. There was a unanimous vote in the Senate in 2006 for him to join the Tenth Circuit. He was seen as a consistent, solid, mainstream, fair judge. That means Senator voted for him. Hillary Clinton voted for him. Chuck Schumer voted for him. voted for him in 2006. prgtoken After going through all of his background leading up to this point, since that time, what has happened? Did he leave the mainstream during that time period after he was overwhelmingly voted here, unanimously out of the Senate, to be on the Tenth Circuit? Well, since that time, he has been a part of 2,700 cases in the last decade. Of those 2,700 cases, 97 percent of them were unanimous. In 99 percent of the cases, he was in the majority in those opinions. Only 1 percent of the time he was not in the majority of the decision. prgtoken So you may ask, who is the Tenth Circuit Court that he is working with, this large group of judges who are in that court? Let me give you the basics of it. Of the Tenth Circuit judges there right now, whom he is serving with, with whom he was in the majority 99 percent of the time, five of the other judges were appointees, five of them were appointees, three of them were Clinton appointees, three of them were Reagan appointees, 1 was 41, and 2 of them were from President Carter. That is the group he was voting with in the majority 99 percent of the time. prgtoken He was seen by this Senate in 2006 to be a solid, mainstream jurist. Since that time period, he has voted with them 99 percent o
HONEST AND OPEN NEW EPA SCIENCE TREATMENT ACT OF 2017
Lamar Smith (Republican, TX) \u2014 2017-3-29

30 seconds. prgtoken , I know the gentleman from Colorado attended the hearing we had this morning on the scientific method and climate change, but I am not sure he was listening, because not a single witness on either side denied the facts around climate change. prgtoken I also want to reassure him--he is worried about Colorado, and I understand that--that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that there was low confidence in any connection between climate change and extreme weather events. So I hope there will not be any unusual extreme weather events in Colorado. prgtoken , I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), a member of the Natural Resources Committee and the Agriculture Committee.
HONEST AND OPEN NEW EPA SCIENCE TREATMENT ACT OF 2017
Jim Banks (Republican, IN) \u2014 2017-3-29

I thank Chairman Smith for sponsoring this legislation, the HONEST Act. prgtoken I believe that this bill will take a very important step toward improving the quality of science at the EPA. This is incredibly important because this agency ensures that our air and water are clean, which is something that all Americans want and deserve. prgtoken However, in recent years, the EPA has not been as transparent and forthcoming with the scientific data that the agency has used as the basis for costly regulations. That is exactly where the HONEST Act comes in. prgtoken By requiring the agency to base its regulations on publicly available science, scientists and the American people will be able to examine the data and pursue their own scientific inquiry if they wish, improving the scientific integrity of the EPA. prgtoken Transparency throughout all levels of the Federal Government is an important tenet of American democracy. I strongly support all efforts to provide the American people with more information on how our government works. This is most important when regulations that impact American jobs and the economy are involved. prgtoken Critics of the HONEST Act claim that requiring scientific data to be public would compromise personal information. This is a false narrative. This legislation specifically protects that information by way of redactions. It is not the interest of Congress or the EPA to compromise anyone's personal data. prgtoken Passage of the HONEST Act comes at a critical time for the EPA. Executive orders issued by President require that the agency review and potentially revise a number of regulations from the past administration that were only partly based on science and that were never made public to the American people. We want to avoid similar situations moving forward, regardless of the administration. prgtoken I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation to promote a more honest and open EPA.
HONEST AND OPEN NEW EPA SCIENCE TREATMENT ACT OF 2017
Andy Biggs (Republican, AZ) \u2014 2017-3-29

I thank the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and especially for sponsoring this legislation, the HONEST Act. prgtoken As the chairman of the Environment Subcommittee on the Science Committee, I fully support this bill that will require EPA regulations be based on science that is publicly available. The HONEST Act pushes forward the basic principles of the scientific method, which is critically important in instances in which science and Federal Government policy intersect. prgtoken Regulations put forward by the EPA impact all Americans, including my constituents in the East Valley of the Greater Phoenix area, the four cities of Chandler, Gilbert, Queen Creek, and Mesa. So it is imperative that the citizens of this country be able to see the data that underpin these rules. What is even more important is that the scientific community be able to scrutinize EPA data to ensure that the Agency is using the best available science, regardless of the administration. prgtoken Critics of the HONEST Act claim that scientific data underpinning EPA's regulations are already subject to the standards of peer review. While this may be true, peer review of scientific studies is not adequate because this process seldom involves a close scrutiny of the data used in these studies. Peer review rarely double-checks the analysis, and very rarely does it attempt to actually replicate the results of a study. Right now, we can only hope that the individuals conducting the science can be trusted with their results. prgtoken The EPA should promote the use of rigorous science, not questionable science. Those who say that peer review is adequate are misguided. The American people deserve better than that, and the HONEST Act ensures that their expectations are met. prgtoken , I urge my colleagues who are interested in an open and honest EPA to pass this legislation. prgtoken Again, I thank Chairman Smith for bringing this legislation forward and giving me the opportunity to speak.
Introductory Statement on S. 762
Chuck Grassley (Republican, IA) \u2014 2017-3-29

in 2006, I was successful in enacting much needed updates to the IRS whistleblower program. Up until that time, the program was entirely a voluntary award program. There was also no central office within the IRS for handling whistleblower claims. Given this, there was little incentive for whistleblowers to step forward potentially risking their careers. prgtoken My 2006 amendments sought to bolster the IRS whistleblower program by making a special program targeted at going after high-dollar tax cheats, such as corporations. It did this by making awards mandatory in cases where a whistleblower discloses tax fraud totaling $2 million or more. Moreover, the 2006 amendments established the Whistleblower Office within the IRS to formalize and manage the program. prgtoken The IRS whistleblower program has turned into one of the most effective programs in addressing tax evasion--leading to the recovery of more than $3 billion in taxes that otherwise would have been lost to fraud. I firmly believe the program has the potential to collect even greater sums going forward. However, for this to occur, the IRS is going to have to completely embrace the program and start to view whistleblowers as their allies. prgtoken The Government Accountability Office, GAO, issued a report on the program in 2015 that expressed concerns that long timelines and poor communication may be discouraging whistleblowers. This is exactly what I have been hearing from whistleblowers for years. Too often whistleblowers are waiting in the dark for years with no communication on where their claim is in the system. prgtoken While the IRS has made improvements in this area, I fear that without further improvements some whistleblowers may start to question whether stepping forward is worth their time and effort. My concern is exacerbated by the fact that under current law, IRS whistleblowers have no protections against employer retaliation for good-faith disclosures. prgtoken That is why I am pleased to be joined by Senator Wyden today in introducing legislation that seeks to address these issues. The IRS Whistleblower Improvements Act would increase communication between the IRS and whistleblowers, while protecting taxpayer privacy, and provide legal protections to whistleblowers from employers retaliating against them for disclosing tax abuses. prgtoken To increase communication, our bill would specifically allow the IRS to exchange information with whistleblowers where doing so would be helpful to an investigation. It would further require the IRS to provide status updates to whistleblowers at significant points in the review process and allows for further updates at the discretion of the IRS. It does this while ensuring the confidentiality of this information is maintained. prgtoken Moreover, to protect whistleblowers from employer retaliation, our bill extends antiretaliation provisions to IRS whistleblowers that are presently afford
HONEST AND OPEN NEW EPA SCIENCE TREATMENT ACT OF 2017
Garret Graves (Republican, LA) \u2014 2017-3-29

I have been standing here listening to this debate. Let's go back and think about this for just a minute. prgtoken Right now, in the United States, the cost of regulation in our Nation is approximately $2 trillion; $2 trillion is the cost that our Nation spends every year just complying with regulations. In fact, that distills down to the average household spending around $15,000 just to comply with regulations. prgtoken Now, let me be clear. Regulations are important. We have got to have regulations to make sure we protect our environment, we protect the health and safety of our citizens. That is critical. prgtoken What this bill does is it simply provides for transparency so we can understand the basis of regulations. That is all this does: make sure that we can understand the science that regulations were based upon. prgtoken During a public comment process, we should have the ability to scrutinize that science to understand the basis. Because, , if you begin hiding the basis for decisions, then you have government, in many cases, acting without providing for transparency, without being able to be held accountable. That is dangerous to have people making decisions based upon secret information. prgtoken That is dangerous for our economy, and it is going to further challenge the ability of Americans to keep their budgets balanced. It is already $15,000 per household. How many thousands does it have to be before we need to say: Stop. This is unreasonable? prgtoken , you look right now at the trade deficit of this country; you look at the cost of goods and products in other nations. In many cases, we are losing the trade war because our regulatory environment here, our tax environment here, is simply not competitive. prgtoken What happens in a scenario where you release the science you provide for transparency, you allow for better solutions. You allow for more efficient regulations, for better ways to achieve those objectives to improve our environment and protect our environment, to improve and protect the safety and health of workers and American citizens. prgtoken This bill is in America's interest. It is in the public interest. To listen to people stand here and talk about hiding and shielding science and making up red herrings about privacy and other things, that is absolutely contrary to this country's interests. It is contrary to the public's interest. prgtoken This bill should be passed. I am shocked that there is opposition to it, and we should pass this with unanimous support.
HONEST AND OPEN NEW EPA SCIENCE TREATMENT ACT OF 2017
Sean P. Duffy (Republican, WI) \u2014 2017-3-29

. Madam , on March 29, 2017, on rollcall No. 203 on ordering the previous question, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' prgtoken On rollcall No. 204 on agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 233, providing for consideration of H.R. 1431, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' prgtoken On rollcall No. 205 on motion to recommit with instructions, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' prgtoken On rollcall No. 206 on final passage of H.R. 1431, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on final passage of H.R. 1431.
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1431, EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD REFORM ACT OF 2017
Dan Newhouse (Republican, WA) \u2014 2017-3-29

I would like to read an excerpt from the American Chemistry Council letter: ``The Science Advisory Board Reform Act would improve the peer review process--a critical component of the scientific process used by EPA in their regulatory decisions about potential risks to human health or the environment. The Act would make peer reviewers accountable for responding to public comment, strengthen policies to address conflicts of interest, ensure engagement of a wide range of perspectives of qualified scientific experts in EPA's scientific peer review panels and increase transparency in peer review reports.'' prgtoken That is a strong statement. prgtoken I also include in the Record a letter from the American Farm Bureau Federation. American Farm Bureau Federation, Washington, DC, March 8, 2017. Hon. Lamar Smith, Chair, House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Washington, DC. Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson: Later this week, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee will consider legislation to provide for Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) member qualifications and public participation. The American Farm Bureau strongly supports this legislation and pledges our commitment to work with the committee in pressing for its swift consideration. This legislation is a priority because it reforms the SAB process by strengthening public participation, improving the process of selecting expert advisors, and expanding the overall transparency of the SAB. While the SAB should be a critical part of the scientific foundation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulatory process, EPA has systematically used its authority to silence dissenting scientific experts. Rather than promote fairness, transparency and independence to ensure unbiased scientific advice, EPA routinely has ignored its own Peer Review Handbook and silenced dissenting voices on expert panels. This legislation seeks to reinforce the SAB process as a tool that can help policymakers with complex issues while preventing EPA from muzzling impartial scientific advice. This legislation deserves strong, bipartisan support. We applaud your leadership in this effort and will work with you to ensure passage. Sincerely, Zippy Duvall, President.