mesut/congress_speeches huggingface dataset:
Introductory Statement on S. 767
Michael F. Bennet (Democrat, CO) \u2014 2017-3-29

even with all the dysfunction in Congress, somehow the American people continue to expect that Washington will enact policies that bear at least some relationship to the challenges they face. Unfortunately, the administration's new Executive order on energy fails even that low bar. prgtoken This order will not expand energy production, it will not make us more energy independent, it will not create more American jobs, and it will also not protect us from the ravages of climate change. That last point is somewhat less surprising than the first because, unlike millions of Americans and 99 percent of scientists, this administration does not believe that climate change is real or that humankind is contributing to it. prgtoken To understand where this Executive order comes from, I think it is important to see where we were before this administration took office. Put simply, the United States was already on track to achieve energy independence. Our country is producing a tremendous amount of low-cost energy. Since 2008, solar energy production has grown more than 50- fold, wind power is up 3-fold, and oil production in the United States of America is up 75 percent. In fact, 5 years ago, we began producing more oil than we import. prgtoken You can see on this slide that over the period of time that the administration was in office, oil production rose like this, and net imports have gone like this--an important fact considering our geopolitical situation in the world. We are also now producing so much natural gas that facilities that were built originally to import gas are now being reengineered to export gas from the United States. I, along with other people in this Chamber, have worked hard to try to make sure those facilities are expedited so we can get the benefit of that exported natural gas. prgtoken Even before President rode to the rescue with his Executive order, the Wall Street Journal told us that exports of natural gas could more than double over the next 5 years, just based on what we are doing already. We are also using energy far more efficiently in our homes, our appliances, and our automobiles, which is why the administration's action to reverse higher fuel standards last week-- well, I just would say, talk about a solution in search of a problem. That is one. prgtoken There is not a person in Colorado who said to me: Michael, do you know what we ought to do? We ought to reduce the fuel efficiency standards on automobiles. We ought to create a regulatory environment where the United States can't sell competitive automobiles in the world. Nobody has said that because not only are they concerned about climate, they are concerned that we lead the world when it comes to innovation. And that order, just like a budget that cuts the EPA by 30 percent, that targets the climate scientists at the EPA, that targets the satellites that are above our heads so that we can't see what i
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Chris Van Hollen (Democrat, MD) \u2014 2017-3-29

I was just listening to my friend, the Senator from Tennessee, and I think there are things we can do to improve the healthcare system and the Affordable Care Act. I am glad that the House soundly defeated the so-called Care bill, RyanCare, whatever you want to call it, but many of us have called for more competition in the exchanges through things like a public option. Also, I think all of us can agree that we need to reduce the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs, and I think there are other things we can do. I welcome that discussion. prgtoken , I am here now to talk about something else that is currently being done to help millions of Americans save for their retirement, to provide for a secure retirement. I know all of us have been involved over the years in debates about how we can strengthen our retirement security program for all Americans. We really have a three- legged stool here. One is Social Security. That is a bedrock of our retirement system. We need to make sure that we strengthen it, and we need to make sure that it is there for all future generations. prgtoken Second, many Americans have the opportunity to have a retirement plan through their employer where their employer guarantees them a certain defined benefit, a certain income stream when they retire. prgtoken And the third leg of this stool has been Americans' private savings, and we want to encourage more Americans to put aside those funds so that they can care for themselves and their families when they are no longer working. prgtoken That is what brings me to the floor today. Many big employers-- including, I should say, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, and the government--provide their employees with things like 401(k) plans. These are ways that people can put aside some of their income as they earn it, but put it aside tax-free for their retirement. And many millions of Americans--again, especially those who work for large employers--have that benefit. But if you work for a smaller employer or even a midsized employer, there is a very good chance that you do not have easy access to those 401(k) plans, to those retirement vehicles that are so essential to saving for retirement. In fact, there are about 55 million Americans, according to studies by both the AARP as well as the Brookings Institution--about 55 million of our fellow Americans who do not have access to those 401(k) vehicles and other kinds of savings vehicles through their employers. prgtoken So in response to this problem, a number of States--five States, to be specific so far, including the State of Maryland--and some municipalities have come up with creative solutions that allow small- and medium-sized employers--those who are not currently offering those retirement vehicles directly--these State plans allow their employees to put aside a little money for their retirement and get the same tax- preferred benefit
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1431, EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD REFORM ACT OF 2017
James P. McGovern (Democrat, MA) \u2014 2017-3-29

. I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. prgtoken , I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation. This is the 23rd closed rule of this short, new Congress. Both and s have been denied the opportunity to amend nearly 60 percent of the legislation that has been brought to the floor through the House Rules Committee. prgtoken This effort by Ryan and the leadership to halt a fair and open debate in the people's House is outrageous. We are supposed to be a deliberative body where both parties get to deliberate. These Putinesque rules that shut down all debate need to stop. This isn't the Kremlin. prgtoken You know, I think Representative Rooney, a , said it best last week: ``I've been in this job for 8 years, and I'm wracking my brain to think of one thing our party has done that's been something positive, that's been something other than stopping something else from happening.'' prgtoken Well, , today we are considering a piece of legislation that seeks to prevent the EPA from protecting public health and the environment--not exactly positive. prgtoken This bill was brought to the Rules Committee in an emergency meeting last night. And let me emphasize that, an emergency meeting. prgtoken , I think the American people have a pretty good idea of what is and what isn't an emergency. A tree falls on your house, that is an emergency. Your rose bush needs pruning, not an emergency. Timmy fell down a well, that is an emergency. Timmy might stub his toe, not an emergency. prgtoken On April 28, the government will run out of money. That is an emergency, even if it is self-inflicted by the s. And we have no shortage of other actual emergencies that we should be dealing with: a devastating opioid epidemic, crumbling roads and bridges, mounting evidence of Russian meddling in our election, and people being killed every day due to gun violence, not to mention Flint, Michigan, is still dealing with the residual health effects of toxically polluted water. prgtoken These are just a few examples of actual emergencies that Congress is doing nothing to address. Instead, the underlying bill, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, is brought to the Rules Committee and to the House floor as an emergency piece of legislation. prgtoken As we learned last week, the American people are paying attention to what we do here. They are smart enough to know what an emergency is. And this bill isn't addressing an emergency, ; it is creating one. prgtoken The Science Advisory Board at the EPA provides a way for the Agency to use sound, independent, and objective scientific data to help make their decisions. Science, --you may have heard of it--is kind of a big deal. prgtoken But this bill won't help the EPA to include more scientists in the decisions. It will force them to include people with pot
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Richard J. Durbin (Democrat, IL) \u2014 2017-3-29

allow me to take a moment of the Senate's time to say thank you and farewell to an exceptional person. prgtoken Ed Greelegs was my chief of staff for 17 years, and he was a wise and trusted friend. I was not unique in that regard. Ed had thousands of friends. I used to marvel while walking through the Capitol with Ed Greelegs because he knew everybody, and everybody knew him--not just the Members of Congress and their staff but cafeteria workers, carpenters, Capitol Police officers, and certainly Senators, Congressmen, and their staffs. He was a beloved member of the Senate community, and what a smart fellow he was. prgtoken During my first 10 years in the Senate, when Ed was my chief of staff, he was an unfailing source of wise and thoughtful advice. Some people are drawn to Congress because of what they think are the perks and power that come with this job. That is not what attracted Ed Greelegs. prgtoken For Ed, being a good public servant was always a privilege. He avoided the spotlight. He was there to help people and to help move America closer to that more perfect Union our Founders dreamed of. prgtoken Fifteen years ago, Ed was diagnosed with early onset Parkinson's. He and his wife Susan faced that formidable challenge the same way they faced everything: together, with love, determination, courage, and a good sense of humor. prgtoken Sadly, yesterday, Ed's battle with Parkinson's ended, and he passed away at the age of 66. prgtoken Parkinson's disease is a bitter adversary. Over the years, it took away Ed's sure-footedness. It nearly killed him twice. In the end, it robbed him of many memories. I can recall speaking to him a few months back, and Susan had warned me that he didn't have much of a memory, she said, unless you want to talk about politics. So I called him, and we talked about politics--even the politics of the day--and Ed was spot on. He always was. But regardless of the loss of memory, it never took away Ed's dignity, his kindness, or his respect for others. prgtoken Ed Greelegs worked for so many Members of Congress from Illinois that I think he became an honorary son of prgtoken our State. He grew up in Washington, DC, in the suburb of Wheaton, MD, and graduated from the University of Maryland. prgtoken He came to the Capitol as an intern in 1970. Before he joined my staff, he worked for Congressman Marty Russo of Illinois, Congressman Bob Eckhart of Texas on the House Commerce Committee, Congressman Sam Gejdenson of Connecticut, and finally back to Congressman Marty Russo. prgtoken He also worked briefly for the Consumer Federation of America and for Fannie Mae. prgtoken In 1990 I persuaded him to come to work for me as my chief of staff in the House. Six years later, when I went to run for the Senate, he was right by my side, and he was there for me 8 years later when I became whip. prgtoken His quiet, wry sense of humor helped to lighten the mood when things became tense, and h
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Sheldon Whitehouse (Democrat, RI) \u2014 2017-3-29

with the plan to defeat the Affordable Care Act itself defeated, President says he wants to move beyond healthcare to focus on other priorities. One area that he has often highlighted is our Nation's crumbling infrastructure, which is a priority that many of us share and is something I would like to discuss today. prgtoken All of our kids, I suspect, dread having to bring home a lousy report card. They would be facing a serious talk. prgtoken Every 4 years, the American Society of Civil Engineers issues a report card for American infrastructure. Our 2017 report card--out just this month--shows lousy marks across the board for American infrastructure. Our ports and bridges got C-pluses, flat Ds for both drinking water infrastructure and roads, and our energy grid got a D- plus. Overall, the United States took home a D-plus grade point average. It is not pretty, and not an improvement over the scores we got 4 years earlier. prgtoken A report card is a progress report, and our grades show we are not making progress. So it is time to get serious about the sorry state of America's roads, bridges, ports, and pipes, which literally keep our economy moving. prgtoken The Civil Engineers estimate that we need an additional $2 trillion in infrastructure investments over the next 10 years to get our infrastructure back to a B grade level. The study also found that there is a cost for lousy infrastructure--that we are set to lose nearly $4 trillion in GDP and $7 trillion in lost business sales by 2025, which would result in 2.5 million fewer jobs that year. prgtoken America's declining infrastructure also faces growing demand. The Bipartisan Policy Center estimates an additional 100 million more people will rely on our transportation system by midcentury. The U.S. Department of Transportation says that we can expect twice the level of freight traffic on our highways and roads by then, so our already worn- down infrastructure is going to take an even heavier beating. We have to be ready for this. We have to make smart investments in the infrastructure backbone of American commerce. We should make those investments now, and we should make them for the long term. prgtoken I am hopeful. Transportation infrastructure has been a rare bipartisan bright spot in Congress. After all, our red States and our blue States both have bridges that age and water mains that rupture. prgtoken Congress has tried many times to push large bipartisan infrastructure bills. In the 112th Congress, a bipartisan group led by Senators Kerry, Graham, and Hutchinson, introduced the BUILD Act to create a national infrastructure bank that would have authorized up to $10 billion to underwrite transportation, water, and energy projects. prgtoken The Partnership to Build America Act, introduced in the 113th Congress by Senators Bennet and Blunt, also proposed an American infrastructure fund, this time financed with a form of tax re
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Charles E. Schumer (Democrat, NY) \u2014 2017-3-29

I rise this morning on a few topics, but I first want to mention that last night many of us spent some time at the White House where we were regaled by the wonderful Marine and Army chorus, where there was talk about renewing a spirit of bipartisanship in Washington. prgtoken I am all for it. Of course, we hope that the President and s in Congress will sit down with us in a true spirit of bipartisanship because so far in this Congress--the s in this Congress so far--the idea of bipartisanship has meant to both the President and the s in Congress: We come up with our plan, and you should support it. That is not bipartisanship. prgtoken The leader, the House , have come up with issue after issue, including a Supreme Court nominee, with no ic consultation, and then said: The only way you can achieve bipartisanship is just to vote with us. prgtoken You can't improve the healthcare system with only votes on reconciliation, without consulting any , without a single sentence of ic input, and call that an attempt at bipartisanship. prgtoken You can't do an infrastructure package of tax credits and no real spending, and then ask for bipartisan support. And you certainly can't out-source your entire selection of Supreme Court Justices to be handpicked by the hard-right, special interest-dominated Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society, and then ask for us to vote for that nominee as a show of bipartisan support. prgtoken Bipartisanship means sitting down with the other side, getting our ideas, and hashing out a compromise. It does not mean proposing your policy--particularly when these policies and nominees are so far to the right--and then making an exhortation for bipartisanship and bemoaning the absence of it when don't go along with your way. I truly hope that the President and s want to renew a spirit of bipartisanship, but it has to be real, it has to be meant, and their actions have to follow suit. Nomination of Neil Gorsuch prgtoken Well, , let's talk about the Supreme Court because that exemplifies exactly what I am talking about. Over the last several weeks, my friends have tried to paint Judge Neil Gorsuch as the beau ideal of a neutral and impartial judge. They insist that Judge Gorsuch is a straight down-the-middle guy, someone who will call the balls and strikes. The majority leader likes to cite a letter of a friend of the judge who says ``there is no principled reason'' to oppose his nomination. Of course, there are several principled reasons to object to Judge Gorsuch. Today I would like to focus on one in particular: Judge Gorsuch's long career ties to conservative interests and conservative ideological groups. prgtoken The idea that Judge Gorsuch would simply be a neutral, mainstream Justice is belied by his
DON'T SHELVE FUEL EFFICIENCY RULES
Brian Higgins (Democrat, NY) \u2014 2017-3-29

in 2009, when gas prices were very high and our dependence on foreign oil was at its peak, the Environmental Protection Agency set standards to increase fuel efficiency of trucks and cars. This helped achieve three main goals: It lessened the burden on consumers faced with high gas prices, addressed the urgent national security priority relating to our addiction to Middle East oil, and sought to limit the admittance of harmful fumes into our atmosphere. prgtoken At the same time, we made unprecedented commitment to our auto industry, and in their most uncertain and darkest moment, facing collapse and bankruptcy, America bailed them out. We did this, and it came with political consequences, but we believe in their centrality to the future of the American economy, and we still do. prgtoken That is why it is so disappointing to see the eagerness the auto industry has with this administration's choice to cave--and cowardly-- on fuel efficiency standards. Gas prices may be low now, but they won't be forever. It would be a misguided decision to shelve these fuel- efficiency rules now.
DON'T SILENCE THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
Susan A. Davis (Democrat, CA) \u2014 2017-3-29

it looks like my colleagues have wasted no time moving back to familiar territory after their healthcare disaster last week. prgtoken Instead of fighting over how many people should lose health coverage, they decided that it is easier to unite around the shared cause of climate denial. This week President announced plans to gut President 's landmark Clean Power Plan, and the House will vote on legislation to block the EPA from reviewing peer reviewed scientific research when forming regulations. prgtoken So think about that for a second--the majority couldn't agree on how many people should lose healthcare coverage; so they are united around the shared cause of climate denial. The President likes to claim that climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese. prgtoken Well, I know that the President and his party have developed a disdain for fact-checkers, but silencing the scientific community takes things to a whole new level. prgtoken , I have to ask: Can my colleagues handle the truth?
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Jeff Merkley (Democrat, OR) \u2014 2017-3-29

the most important words in our Constitution are the first three words. Our Founders made sure that, when the Constitution was written, those were displayed--``We the People''--in super-sized font so that, generations later, we would not forget what our Constitution is all about. prgtoken Our Constitution was not crafted to create a government that would make decisions by and for the powerful. It was not crafted to create a government that would make decisions by and for the privileged. That was the power of the ``we the people'' vision, as President Lincoln so eloquently stated, ``a government of, by, and for the people.'' Well, that is the vision we have the responsibility of maintaining, and it is a vision that is facing a dramatic test in this coming week--a test that affects the integrity of this body, a test that affects the integrity of the Supreme Court. prgtoken Back in January of last year, a Supreme Court seat came open. A Supreme Court seat for which the President had a responsibility to nominate a replacement, a new Justice to serve on the Court. We here in the Senate had a responsibility--a responsibility to exercise advice and consent. That meant that we would vet the nominee, that we would research, have a committee hearing, have a committee vote, and then forward it to the floor, where we would have a floor debate. But for the very first time in the history of the United States of America, the majority party decided that they would not exercise their constitutional responsibility, that they would instead steal this seat from the administration, wrap it up, pack it into a time capsule, and send it into the future, in hopes that they would be able to succeed in packing the Court by having a different President, a more conservative President, proceed to fill the vacancy. prgtoken I am going to go through the 16 cases in our history where there has been a vacancy during an election year, and in 15 cases, the Senate acted. But last year, this Chamber refused to act, for the first time, in trying to exercise a seat-stealing, Court-packing scheme, and that diabolical act against our Constitution will have its final chapter of discussion next week. I think it is important that the Members of the Senate understand the history of the United States of America and the setting in which this debate is going to occur. prgtoken If you read the Constitution from start to finish, nowhere does it say that the Senate has the option of refusing to consider a Supreme Court nominee in the final year of a Presidency. This strategy was announced within hours of Judge Scalia dying. And why would the majority choose to reject their responsibility under their oath of office? Why would they choose to do that? Certainly it wasn't because Merrick Garland wasn't qualified. He hadn't been nominated yet. Certainly it wasn't because there was a precedent because there was no precedent in U.S. history f