mesut/congress_speeches huggingface dataset:
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019--MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed
Charles E. Schumer (Democrat, NY) \u2014 2019-3-27

there is so much going on. So I will be addressing several topics today: healthcare, climate change, Mr. Mueller's report, and Puerto Rico. Healthcare prgtoken , two nights ago, President and Attorney General Barr decided to escalate their 2-year war against healthcare to a whole new level. They declared that the entire Affordable Care Act, and the healthcare for tens of millions of Americans and protections for more than 100 million, is unconstitutional and ought to be eliminated. prgtoken Now, the President wants to go back to repeal and replace again? Make our day. The s here in the Senate tried over and over to deal with repeal and replace. They couldn't because they have no replacement. The American people spoke loud and clear in the November 2018 elections and addressed the antics by defeating them resoundingly. The American people resoundingly rejected the plan of repeal and replace for healthcare. In fact, very few Senators would embrace it when they were running as candidates. prgtoken Indeed, if the Party wants to be, in 's words, ``the Party of healthcare,'' God help the middle class. God save the middle class. God save people with disabilities. God save the hundreds of millions with preexisting conditions. prgtoken If the administration had its way, the elimination of the Affordable Care Act would send premiums soaring for millions of Americans. It would revoke coverage for tens of millions more who gained coverage through Medicaid expansions. It would strike protections for hundreds of millions, even people who get coverage through their employer. It would tell college students and graduates aged 21 to 26 that they could no longer be on their parents' healthcare. prgtoken Let's not forget that this decision would impose billions of dollars in new prescription drug costs for seniors on Medicare. Does the Party really want to raise the price for senior citizens when they buy drugs? That is what they are doing. That is what President is doing. I wasn't at the lunch where the President talked about this, but I didn't hear any reports of any in that room rejecting what the President said when he said repeal and replace. This Party is the Party of healthcare? Come on, now. prgtoken You can't undo all the healthcare for tens of millions, the protections for preexisting conditions for hundreds of millions, the drug costs for tens of millions of seniors, the protections for millions of young college graduates, prgtoken and say you are for healthcare. You just can't. prgtoken Compounding the injury, the President's latest budget wants to cut more than $1 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid. In doing so, the President is breaking his promise, blatantly and uncaringly. He doesn't care about what he promised people. He is breaking his p
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019--MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed
Robert P. Casey, Jr. (Democrat, PA) \u2014 2019-3-27

I rise to talk about an issue that I know is on the minds of many, many Americans, especially folks who are in the middle class or who are struggling to get to the middle class, and that is the issue of childcare. prgtoken I think most of us in this Chamber agree that all children born in this country have a light inside of them. For some children, that light will shine very brightly without a lot of help as they have innate abilities or they have circumstances they are born into for which they don't need a lot of help from public policy or from programs or from legislation. Yet there are a lot of children who have a light inside of them that can burn to the full measure of its potential if we do our job. When I say ``our job,'' I mean the job of elected officials. I think it is the job of every elected official at every level of government and of those who work with them to do everything they can to make sure that the light inside of every child burns as brightly as at least the full measure of his or her potential. prgtoken We know, just by way of one example in the context of childcare, that affordable, high-quality childcare enables parents to work so they can support their families. Also, quality, affordable healthcare helps give children the early learning experiences they need to develop and succeed in school. When children learn more and it is early in life, they will earn more much later in their lives. That connection between learning and earning isn't just a rhyme; all the research shows that there is a direct connection. When that child learns at a younger age because of early education and quality childcare and so many other strategies, we are all better off. Not only is that child better off in his or her family, but we are all better off. We will have a higher skilled workforce; we will have a more productive workforce; and we will grow and be able to out-compete any country in the world if we invest in early learning. prgtoken Unfortunately, we know the challenges. The cost of childcare has increased by 25 percent in just the last decade, which has created significant prgtoken financial strains for those same middle-class families. According to data from Child Care Aware, which is in my home Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the average cost of full-time, center-based childcare is about $11,560 for an infant and about $8,712 for a 4-year-old. This is about 12 percent of a married couple's annual income in Pennsylvania, and it is nearly 46 percent of a single parent's annual income--46 percent. That is not sustainable. That is not a number that anyone should be satisfied with. Frankly, I am not sure that 12 percent of the annual income for a two-parent family is sustainable. We should get that number into the single digits. The bill I will talk about in a moment seeks to do that. prgtoken Just this past week, when we were all back in our States and were able to travel for the bette
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019--MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed
Patrick J. Leahy (Democrat, VT) \u2014 2019-3-27

on January 16, more than 2 months ago, the House passed a supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 268, which addressed the needs of all communities impacted by recent natural disasters. The House-passed disaster bill provided assistance to help people impacted by Hurricanes Florence and Michael, the Hawaii volcanoes, and the California wildfires. It provided aid to the people in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Guam, who were struck last year by typhoons, and the people of American Samoa, who were devastated by Cyclone Gita. It continued assistance for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to help them continue their recovery from Hurricanes Irma and Maria. They passed it 2 months ago. prgtoken Instead of moving quickly on this package to help those Americans in need, Senate s, at the President's insistence, held up the House bill because it included assistance for Americans in Puerto Rico. Instead of giving aid to the people who need it, the President has chosen to delay it over petty grudges and political concerns. prgtoken The President's refusal to help Americans in Puerto Rico not only delays the important disaster bill that many of the other States are relying on to prgtoken speed their recovery efforts, it discriminates against the over 3 million Americans who reside in Puerto Rico, and that is wrong. We have never--certainly in my years here--had disaster bills in which we say that Americans in this State can be helped, but we do not like the Americans in this State, so they cannot be helped. prgtoken This is the United States of America. We are supposed to take care of all of our citizens when there is a crisis, not pick and choose who gets assistance based on who we are aligned with politically. I have voted for disaster relief for red States, for blue States, for purple States because they are part of the United States of America. I feel that as a country we have to come together to help each other when there is a disaster. prgtoken Certainly Senators and ic Senators helped the State of Vermont when we were hit with a disaster a few years ago. Well, today it is Puerto Rico, and all of the Americans in Puerto Rico need our help. prgtoken A year and a half ago, it was hit by two back-to-back category 5 hurricanes. It is rare that anybody ever gets hit by two back-to-back category 5 hurricanes. An estimated 2,975 Americans lost their lives. Homes were demolished, communities destroyed. It was an extraordinary disaster, and it requires a commensurate extraordinary response. prgtoken I am glad we are finally moving to debate on the House-passed bill because we need that. We actually ought to just pass the House-passed bill, but, unfortunately, the s say they will file a substitute that will take us backward, not forward. prgtoken Again, at the President's insistence, it eliminates critical assistance for the Americans in Puerto Rico p
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019--MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed
Sheldon Whitehouse (Democrat, RI) \u2014 2019-3-27

this week the Senate conveyor belt of President 's judicial nominees grinds on. So far, the President and the Senate leader have an unprecedented pace in confirming Federal judges, especially powerful Federal appellate judges. They seem to have no higher priority. prgtoken What is a little weird about this is that nearly 90 percent of 's appellate judges and both of his Supreme Court Justices are members of the so-called Federalist Society. On the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas all are members. Now, that is a little weird. prgtoken What is really weird is that through this Federalist Society vehicle, big, special interests are picking Federal judges. prgtoken In effect, there are three Federalist Societies. The first one most lawyers know from law school. It is, for the most part, a debating society made up of like-minded aspiring lawyers drawn to conservative ideas and judicial doctrine. They organize seminars and invite academics, judges, and attorneys to speak. That is terrific--no problem there. prgtoken The second Federalist Society is the parent organization of the campus debating society--a sort of highbrow think tank seeking to further conservative and libertarian judicial principles. It convenes fancy forums with conservative legal luminaries, from Supreme Court Justices to big-name politicians, to renowned legal scholars. It issues newsletters and produces podcasts and policy recommendations. Through this, they hope to ``reorder priorities within the legal system'' and create a network of members ``that extends to all levels of the legal community.'' prgtoken I disagree pretty strongly with the system of law they are trying impose, and their funding is suspiciously obscure, but this debate is a fine thing to have--so no objection there either. prgtoken Then there is the third Federalist Society. This one doesn't have much in common with the law school debating society, and it certainly doesn't operate like your run-of-the-mill Washington think tank. This Federalist Society is the nerve center for a complicated apparatus that does not care much about conservative principles like judicial restraint or originalism or textualism. prgtoken This Federalist Society is the vehicle for powerful, commercial, and industrial interests that seek not simply to ``reorder'' the judiciary but to acquire control of the judiciary to benefit their interests. This third Federalist Society understands the fundamental power of the Federal judiciary to rig the system in favor of its donor interests and, as the Kavanaugh confirmation so clearly illustrated, is willing to go to drastic lengths to secure that power. prgtoken I am here today to talk about that third Federalist Society. prgtoken The story of the third Federalist Society is partly the story of a man named Leonard Leo, the society's executive vice president. prgtoken Mr. Leo is now the most influential person shaping Americ
REMEMBERING SAMYA STUMO
Edward J. Markey (Democrat, MA) \u2014 2019-3-27

Samya Stumo, a University of Massachusetts Amherst graduate and resident of Sheffield, MA, was tragically killed aboard Ethiopian Airlines flight 302. Samya, just 24 years old, was a champion of social justice, with a goal of revolutionizing global health. Her undergraduate fieldwork in Peru challenged unjust social services; her master's work in Europe gave a voice to marginalized patient groups living with viral hepatitis; and, most recently, she was working to disrupt the status quo in global health systems to help countries achieve universal healthcare coverage. She strove for all people and patients to be treated as human beings, particularly in context of their culture, family, and individuality. She was a beacon of hope for Massachusetts, the Nation, and all of the lives she has touched.
INTRODUCTION OF THE SUPPORTING CHILDREN OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE ACT
J. Luis Correa (Democrat, CA) \u2014 2019-3-27

. Madam , according to the U.S. Department of Education, more than 80 percent of military-connected children attend public schools. In 2011, the Government Accountability Office reported that data concerning the academic outcomes of these students was limited. In response, Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds Act, which included the military student identifier to require that public schools identify and report on the academic outcomes of military- connected students. prgtoken However, the military student identifier only includes children with a parent who is on active-duty in the Armed Forces. Children whose parents serve in the National Guard or Reserve Components are excluded from the military student identifier unless that parent serves full- time. These children still face unique challenges and stressors as members of the National Guard and Reserves often deploy within their respective state in response to state emergencies, directives, or while in training. prgtoken Therefore, the Supporting Children of the National Guard and Reserve Act expands the military student identifier to include children of the National Guard and Reserves. prgtoken This simple and straightforward change will provide invaluable data for educators, parents, and policymakers to understand the academic outcomes of all military-connected students.
PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT
Steny H. Hoyer (Democrat, MD) \u2014 2019-3-27

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wanted to speak during general debate, but I will take this time to speak on behalf of this legislation and also to rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. prgtoken , the American people entrusted with the majority in part because we pledged to work hard on the issues they care about most, issues affecting their everyday lives. prgtoken I am the father of three daughters. They are all extraordinary people. I want them all treated based upon the content of their character, their performance, and the duties that they perform, not on the fact that they happen to be daughters and not sons. prgtoken One of the issues we pledged to address was raising wages, and that includes addressing the gender pay gap, which keeps women from earning their fair share and hurts families, children, and all people. prgtoken The last time I was the majority leader, which was from 2007 to 2011, we enacted the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to make it easier for women who have faced discriminatory pay and benefits to seek justice. prgtoken Lilly Ledbetter had worked hard, and she did not know that she was being paid less than her counterparts doing exactly the same thing she was doing, with exactly the same responsibility and exactly the same expectations. There was no justice in that, but she didn't know it. The Supreme Court said, well, you didn't raise the issue quickly enough. prgtoken We also passed the Paycheck Fairness Act in that same Congress, but, unfortunately, the Senate failed to enact it as well. prgtoken Now we return to this important work of ensuring equal pay for equal work. Who, intellectually, can oppose that concept? Who, with any sense of fairness and fair play, could oppose that concept and precept? prgtoken It is shameful, , that, in 2019, 56 years after President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, we are here fighting for equal pay. A half century later, women still earn, on average, 80 cents to a man's dollar, and, very frankly, minority women earn less than that. That gap is even worse for minorities. Two-thirds of women are now either the primary breadwinners or co-breadwinners in their households. prgtoken Make no mistake, this is an economic concern for families across our country. This is not a woman's issue. It is a fairness issue. It is an every family, every person issue. prgtoken ran on a platform of raising wages, as I said. We are focused on making sure that more working families can make it in America. That is what this bill will help achieve. prgtoken I am proud that every member of the ic Caucus--let me repeat that, every member--234 members of the ic Caucus have signed on as cosponsors of this bill because we believe it is fair; because we believe it is right; because we believe it is good for families; and, yes, because we believe it is good for the American economy. prgtoken Rosa DeLauro is
PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT
Sheila Jackson Lee (Democrat, TX) \u2014 2019-3-27

. Madam Chair, it is important to note that no one, as a woman, can ask you what your previous pay was--how denigrating that is--and use it as a basis to not pay you what you really deserve in this new position. prgtoken Also, women are heads of household; they deserve the ability to provide for their family. prgtoken Madam Chair, this is not a lawsuit bill. This is an opportunity bill. This is a fairness bill. This is the ability to go into court to receive justice. And, yes, as part of justice, class-action lawsuits can work. prgtoken I believe that the Paycheck Fairness Act should be passed, promptly going to the other body, and be signed by the President of the United States, because women, too, have the responsibilities to serve and provide for their family. prgtoken This is an historic piece of legislation. I thank Rosa DeLauro.
PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT
Susan Wild (Democrat, PA) \u2014 2019-3-27

. Madam Chair, don't be mistaken. This amendment is a clear attempt to undermine the fundamental objectives of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which are to engender pay disparity by, in part, further clarifying congressional intent so that courts can no longer dismiss meritorious claims. prgtoken The Paycheck Fairness Act fixes current employment discrimination and pay discrimination laws, laws that have proven insufficient, given that women still earn 80 cents on the dollar compared to similarly situated White men. And, of course, the disparity for women of color is even greater. prgtoken Under the current Equal Pay Act, an employer is not liable for gender pay disparity if the disparity is due to merit, seniority, quality of production or ``a factor other than sex.'' Some courts have interpreted the ``factor other than sex'' criteria so broadly that it frustrates the codified intent of the Equal Pay Act. prgtoken For instance, some courts have found that the ``factor other than sex'' need not be business related or even related to the particular job in question. Some courts have interpreted the ``factor other than sex'' defense to include ``market forces,'' or worse, accepted the argument that pay disparity can be explained by an employer's ``random decision.'' prgtoken Those interpretations are nothing more than a lifesaver for pretextual discrimination. This amendment does the same thing. prgtoken My colleagues' suggestion that the Paycheck Fairness Act eliminates the ``factor other than sex'' defense is contradicted by the text of this bill. An employer may still raise a ``factor other than sex'' defense provided that the ``factor other than sex'' be bona fide, job related, and required by business necessity. prgtoken This amendment's attempt to strike section (3)(a)(3), which explains what constitutes a bona fide factor, is an attempt to create ambiguity so that courts continue to interpret the act's protection in a narrow way. prgtoken This bill provides necessary clarity that this bona fide factor defense is only available when there is a real business necessity. This bill ensures that there is a connection between the pay disparity and the specific job in question. This amendment is contrary to the congressional intent of the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' prgtoken Mr. Chair, .
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019--MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed
Richard J. Durbin (Democrat, IL) \u2014 2019-3-27

I come to the floor today to speak about the Dream Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation that would give immigrant students who grew up in the United States a chance to earn their citizenship. This is not a new topic. It was 19 years ago that I introduced the Dream Act. It hasn't become law yet, but it has inspired a movement of thousands of young people across this country. prgtoken Back in the day when I introduced this bill and talked about the Dreamers, people thought you were talking about a British rock group. In this case, the Dreamers happened to be a group of people living in America who were desperately trying to become part of America's future. They came to the United States as children, infants, toddlers, and kids. They are American in every way except for a piece of paper on their immigration status. They have gone to our schools. They sit next to us in church. They are the kids whom you see on the playground with your own kids, but they are undocumented. Because they are undocumented, they are subject to deportation at any moment in their lives. prgtoken They end up going to school, but it is tougher for them. They don't qualify for Pell grants or Federal loans. They have to find a way to save the money or find a way to secure a scholarship that just might be available to them, but it is rare. Most of the time it means a longer period of time in college before they can finish, as they save up the money. Ultimately, they are trained to become our teachers, our nurses, our doctors, our engineers, and even our soldiers. prgtoken Yesterday I reintroduced the Dream Act. My cosponsor is Senator Lindsey Graham, a from South Carolina and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I want to thank Lindsey Graham for joining me in this bipartisan effort. Bipartisanship is rare in this Chamber, and on an issue of controversy, it is even rarer. prgtoken Senator Graham and I have a long history of working together because we believe that Congress has an obligation to do the job we were elected to do and pass legislation that solves problems. Senator Graham and I were partners in the Gang of 8--four ic Senators and four Senators. That was the gang with the great John McCain, Chuck Schumer, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake, Bob Menendez, and Michael Bennet. prgtoken We wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill a few years back in 2013. We brought it to the floor of the Senate. We covered virtually every aspect of immigration law. Believe me, immigration law is a mess, and it needed that kind of comprehensive approach. We brought it up to a vote on the floor, and the vote was 68 to 32. It was a bipartisan vote. After months of working on this bill, we couldn't have been happier. We finally had a bipartisan bill to address the immigration challenge in America. prgtoken The bill left here and went to the House of Representatives under a leadershi