mesut/congress_speeches huggingface dataset:
SMALL BUSINESS HEALTH FAIRNESS ACT OF 2017
Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (Democrat, VA) \u2014 2017-3-22

such time as I may consume. prgtoken , today we are considering a bill that purports to make it easier for small businesses to obtain coverage, and tomorrow we will vote on a bill that will take away health insurance coverage for 24 million Americans and force everyone else to pay more for less. So not only are we considering a bill today that will make things worse, we are considering it a day before we vote on ruining health security for working families in order to provide tax cuts for the wealthy. prgtoken As we debate the possible replacement of the Affordable Care Act, I think it is instructive that we look back at what the situation was before the ACA passed. prgtoken Listening to some, you would think that the costs weren't going up at all. In fact, costs were going through the roof before the ACA, and small businesses, particularly, were having spectacular cost increases--and that is until somebody got sick. At that point, you were unlikely to be able to afford any insurance at all. prgtoken Every year before the ACA, small businesses were dropping insurance right and left, particularly after somebody got sick. Also, before the Affordable Care Act, people with preexisting conditions couldn't get insurance. Women were paying more than men. Millions of people were losing their insurance every year. prgtoken Since then, the costs have continued to go up, but at the lowest rate in the last 50 years. People with preexisting conditions can get insurance at the standard rate. Small businesses can cover their employees through the Affordable Care Act at the average cost, whether or not anybody in their small business has cancer or diabetes. Women are not paying more than men. Instead of millions of people losing their insurance every year, 20 million more people have insurance. prgtoken In addition to that, families now enjoy strong consumer protections. The full name of the Affordable Care Act is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Now there are no caps on what an insurance company pays, and they can't cancel your policy for anything other than nonpayment. Preventive services such as cancer screenings are available with no copay or deductible. Those up to 26 can stay on their parents' policy, and the doughnut hole is being closed. prgtoken The ACA did not cure every problem, but it went a long way to making Americans healthier and giving them some economic security. It could have gone further if, in the past 7 years, s would have been willing to work with to build on the progress instead of forcing over 60 votes to repeal all parts of the Affordable Care Act. prgtoken If we do anything now, we ought to improve the situation, not make it worse. The plan makes things worse. The CBO analysis concluded that 24 million fewer people will have insurance, and most of those that get insurance in the future will be paying more for policies that don't deliver a
BUILD ON AFFORDABLE COVERAGE
Kathy Castor (Democrat, FL) \u2014 2017-3-22

I am here today on the floor of the House to speak out on behalf of my neighbors back home in the State of Florida. I represent a district in the Tampa Bay area. Let me tell you, they are very concerned about the impact of this healthcare bill. prgtoken What we know about the bill so far, based upon the report of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, is that the bill will rip coverage away from at least 24 million Americans. This is at a time when we have made such progress since the adoption of the Affordable Care Act. prgtoken Under the Affordable Care Act, about 20 million Americans have gained coverage, including about 1.7 million of my neighbors in Florida that went shopping on healthcare.gov and found an affordable option. prgtoken The bill would take us backwards. It would also impose huge cost increases on everyone. Let me tell you, most people in America have their insurance through their employer. And under the Affordable Care Act--it hasn't been perfect--what we have seen in the State of Florida between the years 2010 and 2015 is the rate of increase for my neighbors who have their insurance through their jobs has been kept in check. The rate of increase has only been 1.3 percent. Before the adoption of the Affordable Care Act, the rate of increase was well over 8 percent. prgtoken Why is this happening? prgtoken If you have insurance through your job, you want other people to have insurance coverage. That is very important because, if more Americans don't have insurance coverage, they show up in the emergency room and that cost is passed along to those who have coverage or those on Medicare, or the hospital has to take on bad debt, or local governments have to raise taxes to cover that care. prgtoken Under this bill, hold on to your wallet because that insurance coverage now will be unaffordable for millions of more Americans. If you have insurance through your job, like most people do, you are now going to end up picking up the cost of people that can no longer afford coverage. prgtoken If you are a little bit older, easing into Medicare--maybe you are 50 to 64--hold on to your wallet. There is a huge age tax in this bill. prgtoken I will give you an example from a neighbor of mine back home. Her name is Kathy Palmer. She lives in Tampa. She works two part-time jobs. She works for an accountant. It is a small business. They cannot afford to provide insurance through their small business. She is also working to get her degree in accountancy from the University of South Florida. Kathy has two part-time jobs. She is age 60. She is going to school to get a degree. She has a teenager in high school. She couldn't afford insurance coverage before the Affordable Care Act. When the Affordable Care Act was adopted, she could go prgtoken shopping on healthcare.gov and get some tax credit help to help afford coverage. prgtoken Here is what happened
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Bill Nelson (Democrat, FL) \u2014 2017-3-22

there has been a lot of conversation from so many of our fellow Senators about the opioid crisis that has been devastating individuals and families across the country. We heard this particularly in New Hampshire as it was a topic of discussion last fall during the election. It was an opportunity to bring to the Nation's attention--because of the eyes being focused first on the New Hampshire primary--of a real opioid crisis. prgtoken What we also then discussed was that it was not just affecting a few States, it was affecting most of the States. That is the case with my State of Florida. Addiction to opioids has reached staggering levels, and the situation is only getting worse. In 2015, more than 33,000 Americans died from prescription opioid overdoses. That is 15 percent more people than had died just the previous year. I don't have the figures for last year, 2016. prgtoken So Florida is right there in that national trend. What Florida saw between 2014 and 2015 was a 22.7-percent increase. It is staggering because in that year, Florida suffered over 2,000 deaths from opioid overdoses. Earlier this month, our office interviewed a woman from Florida for yesterday's Committee on Aging's hearing. prgtoken She is caring for her 7-year-old grandson because his mother lost custody, was later incarcerated due to her drug addiction. Sadly, this story is all too familiar. The number of grandparents serving as the primary caretakers for their grandchildren is increasing, as was the case with the lady from Florida who testified at the Committee on Aging hearing this week. They are primary caretakers for their grandchildren. It is, in large part, because of the opioid epidemic. prgtoken In addition to the devastating loss of life and the challenges for the new caregivers, opioid abuse is straining local and State budgets. Just last month, the vice mayor of Palm Beach County sent a letter to the Governor urging him to declare a public health prgtoken emergency in Florida citing the loss of life and financial impact--in this case to Palm Beach County. prgtoken Yesterday, several of my colleagues and I sent a letter to the majority leader of the Senate highlighting some of our concerns with the House of Representative's healthcare bill that I call Care and how it is going to impact those with substance abuse disorders because one of the things we are most concerned about is how the proposed changes in Medicaid that they are going to vote on at the other end of the hall--right down here tomorrow, they are going to vote on the House of Representative's healthcare Care bill. prgtoken The changes they make to Medicaid would prevent States from being able to respond to the opioid crisis because Medicaid plays a critical role in the fight against opioids, but changing the Medicaid Program to a block grant or a cap is going to shift costs to the States. The States are not going to pick up that additional co
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Elizabeth Warren (Democrat, MA) \u2014 2017-3-22

during his campaign, President talked a big game about standing up for workers and creating good, high-paying jobs, but so far, the s haven't voted on a single piece of legislation to create jobs, to grow our economy, or to increase wages for middle-class families--not one single piece, no votes to create jobs, grow the economy, or increase wages for middle- class families--but they have been voting. prgtoken Two weeks ago, Senate s voted along party lines, 49 to 48, to make it easier for companies that get big-time, taxpayer-funded government contracts to steal wages from their employees. They also made it easier for those companies to injure their workers without admitting liability. Today, we are voting to make it easier for employers in the most dangerous industries to hide the most serious injuries and illnesses their workers suffer on the job. prgtoken This isn't some burdensome new regulation. Large employers in the most dangerous industries have been required to record serious illnesses and injuries their employees suffer on the job since 1972, a few years after the Occupational Health and Safety Act was first passed in 1970. prgtoken The rule s are trying to overturn today simply clarifies an employer's obligation to maintain accurate, up-to-date records on workplace illnesses and injuries for 5 years. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration--or OSHA, as most of us call it--at the Labor Department has been enforcing this requirement in every administration since 1972, ic and . OSHA uses these data to determine how best to prioritize workplace inspections. Since OSHA resources are so scarce, they have only enough money to inspect each workplace once every 140 years. So they kind of pick and choose where to focus these days to make sure they are targeting their inspections at industries and in occupations where workers are at the highest risk of injury. The Department also uses these reports to publish yearly statistics on the workplace hazards that kill 4,800 people and injure another 3 million people--American workers hurt and killed every year. prgtoken Data show employers already vastly underreport workplace injuries and illnesses, and without this rule, underreporting will skyrocket. It will get harder for OSHA to hold employers accountable when they cut corners and endanger worker safety. prgtoken Today's vote is great news for the s who will rake in campaign contributions from their buddies at the Chamber of Commerce. It is great news for giant corporations that are lobbying hard against this rule, but it is not great news for hard-working Americans. The people did not send us to Washington to work for companies that plump up their profits by skirting safety regulations. prgtoken The problem? This is just the beginning. Last week, President proposed cutting the Department of Labor's budget by more tha
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION--Continued
Edward J. Markey (Democrat, MA) \u2014 2017-3-22

. Thank you, . prgtoken We have a historic debate going on here in Congress. Yes, there is a lot of discussion about the Russians cracking into our elections using electronic technologies. We have a President of the United States who is contending that his predecessor in the White House wiretapped his apartment in the Tower. We have stories about the compromise of websites all across America--this company, that company, millions of healthcare records, people's privacy compromised, front page, above the fold. This is huge. What is going on in our country when this new technology allows for such an invasion into the privacy of the President of the United States, of citizens all across our country? prgtoken These hearings are going on right now in rooms all across Capitol Hill. Everyone is concerned. Everyone is cross-examining witnesses, saying: How can this happen in our country? And then they are told: Oh, it is this new electronic technology which is out there. It allows for the ability to be able to crack into the privacy of Presidents and ordinary citizens. It makes it possible to make television sets that are purchased and then can be turned, from a remote distance, into a monitoring device just looking at you in your living room. How can this happen? What are the rules? Is there going to be any protection for the American people? So night after night, story after story, look at the compromise of the privacy, the security in our country, but out here on the Senate floor tonight we have the response. The s are saying to the American consuming public: You have no privacy. If you are at home, if you have Comcast or Verizon, if you have AT&T, and they are gathering all this information about you as your broadband provider, every site you go to, everything you are doing, everything your children are doing, what they are saying as of tonight, no privacy, no privacy if you have bandwidth. Everything is out there to be captured by these big broadband barons, and then they can sell it. They can sell it. prgtoken What is the s' answer? prgtoken They say: Well, the internet thrives because of a light touch--a light touch. No, ladies and gentlemen, that is not what created what we have here today. We had to pass new regulations in 1996. I know, I was there. I was the on the committee in the House. There was no broadband--not one home in America had broadband in 1996. Can I say that again? Not one home in America in 1996 had broadband. prgtoken Today, for a 12-year-old, a 50-inch screen plugged into broadband, that is a constitutional right. It didn't exist in 1996 anywhere. Was it because it hadn't been invented, that people hadn't thought through broadband, they hadn't thought through what was possible? No. It was because these companies decided, because they were pretty much all monopolies, that they weren't going to deploy it. So we had to change the rules
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Sheldon Whitehouse (Democrat, RI) \u2014 2017-3-22

on the day of the news reporting the World Meteorological Organization is prgtoken declaring that 2016 was the hottest year ever recorded, and further declaring that the planet is now in what they call, ``truly uncharted territory,'' I rise for my 161st ``Time to Wake Up'' speech, in this case to update my colleagues on the state of our oceans. prgtoken I am from the Ocean State. In January, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a report with the U.S. Geologic Survey, the Environmental Protection Agency, researchers at Rutgers University, Columbia University, and the South Florida Water Management District. prgtoken The report updates global sea level rise estimates--perhaps not a big issue for Colorado but a big issue for Rhode Island. It made region- specific assessments for our American coastline. Based on updated peer- reviewed scientific literature, the report raised the previous upper range, or extreme, scenario for average global sea level in the year 2100 by an additional half a meter. prgtoken NOAA and its partners then tailored their findings to the U.S. coastline based on regional variations in ocean circulation and gravitational pull and local land conditions like erosion, subsidence, and groundwater depletion, all of which affect the local impacts of global sea level rise. They found that under the higher scenarios, all regions in the United States, except Alaska, can expect sea level rise higher than the global mean average. The news was particularly harsh for the western Gulf of Mexico and for the northeast Atlantic coast-- Virginia through Maine, including my home State of Rhode Island. prgtoken Our coastal managers, like Rhode Island's Coastal Resources Management Council--the CRMC, we call them--are taking these new estimates seriously and incorporating the high scenario into their planning. Under the new scenario, the Northeast is expected to see 9 vertical feet of sea level rise by the end of the century. That means that a child born today in Providence, RI, at Women & Infants Hospital is likely to live long enough to see this 9-foot vertical sea level rise take place along our shores. prgtoken By the way, when you go up 9 feet, the shore goes back many, many hundreds of feet in many places. In Rhode Island, what CRMC is now planning for is between 9 and 12 vertical feet of sea level rise for our State. That is going to hit Rhode Island communities pretty hard. prgtoken Rhode Island's CRMC and our University of Rhode Island have developed together something called STORMTOOLS. It is an online research tool that projects the effects of this sea level rise and additional storm surge onto the State's coastal properties. prgtoken The tool actually now needs to be updated because it currently maxes out at 7 feet of sea level rise, which was the previous high scenario. Now that we have raised it to 9 to 12 feet, they are going to have to go back and redo it. prgtoken
AMERICAN HEALTH CARE ACT IS BAD FOR NEW YORK HOSPITALS
Carolyn B. Maloney (Democrat, NY) \u2014 2017-3-22

the GOP's awful, irresponsible healthcare bill will impose an age tax on older Americans, it will raise your premiums, and it will be absolutely disastrous to our Nation's hospitals. prgtoken In my district in New York, our hospitals serve millions of people every day, and their budgets are already stretched. The GOP healthcare bill will rip away health insurance for over 24 million Americans, forcing more people to get care in high-cost emergency rooms while, at the same time, cutting billions in Federal funding hospitals need to survive. prgtoken New York's hospitals will lose over $1 billion in 2018 alone. With uncompensated care already skyrocketing, the 27 New York hospitals that are already on a financial distress watch list tell me they may not even be able to survive. That is why the Greater New York Hospital Association, the Healthcare Association of New York State, and other New York health groups are urging all of us to vote ``no'' on this terrible GOP bill.
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION--Continued
Brian Schatz (Democrat, HI) \u2014 2017-3-22

. Thank you, . prgtoken It is really a simple proposition and it is a scary one. As soon as this legislation is enacted, internet service providers can collect your browsing data and sell it without your permission. Right now there is a lot of conversation about who has jurisdiction, the FTC or the FCC, and who is more appropriate to govern internet privacy, whether this should be public sector or private sector, but the basic question is this for the pending legislation, Should ISPs, your internet service provider, be allowed to collect your browsing data without your permission and sell it? I think the answer for 98 percent of the public is a resounding no. prgtoken Right now there is a single Federal agency that has the authority to protect consumers and their privacy when it comes to data collected by ISPs, and that is the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, but the s are proposing that the Congress strip the FCC's ability to protect your privacy, and when they succeed, the American people will lose the very few Federal protections they have when it comes to online privacy. prgtoken Think about how much of your life is on line today--banking, health, your interactions with your kids, your kids' interactions with other kids. It is incredibly personal, and it is not just confidential information in a traditional sense or in a legal sense, it is really a complete picture of everything you are. That is why this is worth fighting about. It is worth protecting. That is why the FCC made these rules--to recognize that we live so much of our lives online and that in a lot of instances we don't really feel like we have a choice about whether we are going to engage in a contract to get broadband service. That is a necessity for many of us. Consumers deserve some basic protections, not only do the s want to get rid of the FCC rule that basically says an ISP cannot collect your data and sell it for commercial purposes, but they want to do it in a way that will ensure that no Federal agency, not a single one, will have jurisdiction over privacy for consumers using broadband. They are trying to take the referee off the playing field and for good. prgtoken The problem is very simple. There are actually two agencies that could have jurisdiction over privacy online, but there was a Ninth Circuit Court decision that made a ruling that removes the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission over online privacy in the broadband space. So of the two agencies, the FTC and FCC, the FTC, according to this Federal court, no longer has jurisdiction. Now it is on the FCC's prgtoken side of the house, but if we repeal the FCC rule, the way the Congressional Review Act runs is that it will prevent us from ever addressing something ``substantially similar'' again. This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing with this rule. This isn't about whether you think the FCC or FTC ought to appropriately dea