mesut/congress_speeches huggingface dataset:
TRUMPCARE
Bill Nelson (Democrat, FL) \u2014 2017-3-14

I want to talk about Care. In my State of Florida, there are nearly 2 million people who are covered through the Affordable Care Act, through healthcare.gov. The State of Florida leads the way with the highest ACA marketplace enrollment numbers. In my State, there are another 9 million people who get their health coverage from their employers. prgtoken This group also benefits from the ACA's protections, like prohibitions against lifetime limits on insurance and discriminating against people with preexisting conditions. In our State, almost 8 million people have preexisting conditions, which includes something as common as asthma. prgtoken Before the ACA, people undergoing lifesaving cancer treatments were being told by their insurance companies they would no longer cover those treatments. Now, under the current law, the ACA, insurance companies can no longer discriminate against preexisting conditions, and your children are going to be able to stay on your family policy until they are age 26. By the way, that is another 4 million people in the United States. Four million young people up to age 26 now get health insurance who didn't get it before the ACA. prgtoken What has come out of the House of Representatives--what I will refer to as Care--called the American Health Care Act--has some very troubling provisions. The House plan would mean 14 million people would lose coverage next year. That number, according to the CBO, would rise to 24 million people who have healthcare coverage now and would lose it--24 million people. prgtoken Care would also mean an end to Medicaid as we know it because it comes in and caps Medicaid. It shifts the cost of Medicaid from the Federal Government to the State governments. If you happen to be a State that has not expanded Medicaid--as is allowed under the ACA, expanding it up to 138 percent of poverty--and if you are one of the 16 States, like my State, that hasn't expanded it, you are going to get a double whammy. You are going to have your Medicaid amount from the Federal Government, called the block grant, capped, and it is going to be capped at your level instead of the higher level because you hadn't expanded your Medicaid. prgtoken The Care out of the House of Representatives is going to get rid of the financial assistance that has helped so many get health coverage. The bottom line is--and this is what the CBO says--folks are going to pay more, and they are going to get less. They are going to get less coverage. prgtoken What else does Care do? In fact, it cuts the taxes for the wealthy, and it shifts the financial burden of healthcare more to the poor. It would allow insurance companies to charge seniors up to five times more than younger Americans. Now, the existing law--the ACA--has age done in three groups. You can only charge an older person on their premiums, according to their age, three times more than you can charge a
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Richard J. Durbin (Democrat, IL) \u2014 2017-3-14

I come to the floor today to talk about another rule the s want to overturn instead of working with to create jobs. This rule outlines when State unemployment agencies can drug test applicants for unemployment benefits. prgtoken Today there are roughly 7.6 million Americans who are unemployed, and over 2 million of these unemployed Americans are collecting unemployment insurance. About 150,000 of these people live in Illinois. prgtoken Unemployment insurance benefits provide a lifeline to many workers and families who are struggling to make ends meet. If this resolution passes, my colleagues will succeed in preventing hard- working Americans from receiving these benefits, and they will succeed in making it more difficult for unemployed Americans to find work. prgtoken This past August, the Department of Labor finalized a rule that explains when State unemployment agencies can subject unemployment benefit applicants to a drug test. The rule clarifies which occupations regularly conduct drug testing, as established by the Department of Labor, to help State programs that conduct drug testing. prgtoken This rule makes sure States have the guidance they need to implement drug testing requirements in a fair and legal prgtoken mariner, but if this partisan CRA is signed into law, it will undo a bipartisan compromise that was created to ensure equitable access to unemployment benefits. prgtoken Unemployed Americans have paid into the unemployment insurance program, and they are entitled to receive that insurance when they lose their job to circumstances beyond their control. By supporting blanket drug testing of unemployment insurance applicants, my colleagues are targeting hard-working Americans who in many cases have fallen on hard times. prgtoken And let me be clear, this will make it more difficult for them to receive the benefits they have earned. prgtoken Millions of Americans around the country voted for leaders who would fight for the working class. Repealing this rule will be another broken promise to those families. prgtoken Drug testing is also expensive. In 2011, the Texas Legislative Budget Board estimated it would cost Texas $30 million over the course of just 1 year if they moved forward with a universal drug-testing policy for unemployment benefits. prgtoken When States have conducted drug testing of applicants for other government programs, like the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, very few claimants have tested positive for drug use. prgtoken My colleagues say that this resolution will help save taxpayer money, but overturning the Department of Labor's rule will lead to millions of wasted taxpayer dollars on drug tests that come back negative. prgtoken This resolution isn't about saving money. It is about paving the way for lawmakers who want to drug test every American who has to file for unemployment insurance; yet these same
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Sheldon Whitehouse (Democrat, RI) \u2014 2017-3-14

before I get into my ``Time to Wake Up'' speech, let me say I appreciate the concern of the Senator from Texas that the Affordable Care Act leaves too many Americans uninsured. I am not sure the solution to that problem is to throw another 24 million people off of their insurance. I appreciate his concern that premiums for many are too high. I am not sure the solution is to dramatically increase premiums on the elderly. I appreciate his concern that Medicaid can be managed by the States--and I think I used his words correctly--along with the money to prgtoken pay for it. But when the bill has $800 billion in Medicaid savings but will not cure or prevent a single illness, you are not reducing those $800 billion in savings; you are just moving it to the States. You are just putting that burden on the States. Ask Arizona how that worked when they tried to do Medicaid as they dealt with the mortgage meltdown. prgtoken The American people do perhaps demand better than Care, but the solution to offer them something that is far, far worse does not seem very sensible. I believe we are willing to work together. Indeed, in the HELP Committee our chairman has already said that as soon as we start talking about repair, we can get to work. But the notion that there is an invitation out to us to work in a bipartisan fashion when the majority party is jamming this bill through without negotiation, using reconciliation as an extraordinary process to try to put it through under arcane budget rules that were never designed for this-- that is not exactly much of a signal. So as soon as we get to regular order and 60 votes, I think we will be able to actually work and serve our constituents very well. Climate Change prgtoken , I am here today for my 160th ``Time to Wake Up'' speech, this one focused on the security consequences of our failure to deal with carbon emissions and climate change. prgtoken My remarks at the Munich Security Conference this year pointed out that climate change presents several orders of security risk to society. The first order of security risk is just physical damage, damage that science and our senses are already perceiving and measuring in our atmosphere, our oceans, and our environment. prgtoken This security risk, risks to the Earth's present national state, will hurt farming communities, coastal communities, fishing communities, and of course anyone vulnerable to wildfires, droughts, and extreme weather. Of course, the poorer you are in this world, the more vulnerable you are to this peril. prgtoken The second order of security risk from climate change is the consequences in human society from that physical, biological, and chemical damage in our environment. As farms and fisheries fail, people are impoverished and dislocated. Scarce resources lead to conflicts and confrontations. Storms and fires can make suffering acute, and people
H.J. RES. 57
Benjamin L. Cardin (Democrat, MD) \u2014 2017-3-14

in December 2015, this body came together to enact what then-President called a Christmas miracle, the Every Student Succeeds Act, ESSA. This truly bipartisan, bicameral compromise reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, for the first time in more than 14 years on the compromise of local control for Federal safeguards. First enacted more than 50 years ago as a part of the civil rights era, the ESEA sought to ensure that all children, regardless of their ZIP Code, were able to obtain a high- quality education. The legislative process is about compromise, and I have prgtoken concerns that last Thursday's vote to use the Congressional Review Act to repeal the Department of Education's ESSA regulations will roll back that compromise and leave our neediest students without the Federal safeguards they deserve. prgtoken Ensuring access to a high-quality education is one of the most important duties of Federal, State, and local governments. I supported ESSA, along with 84 other Members of this body, to move our State and local school systems away from a Federal, one-size-fits-all ``adequate yearly progress'' accountability system and allow States to design their own accountability systems to identify, monitor, and assist schools. Rather than rely on a collective set of test scores to measure student performance as under No Child Left Behind, ESSA allows States to design accountability systems that will take into consideration student growth over the course of a school year. States will be able to consider multiple measures of student learning, including access to academic resources, school climate, and safety, access to support personnel, and other measures which can allow for differentiations in student performance within a school or a local school district. All of this is being done while ensuring students are held to the high, yet achievable, standard of being college- and career-ready upon completion of high school. While State and local school systems have newfound flexibility under ESSA, they must adhere to a Federal civil rights safeguards meant to ensure children with disabilities, students of color, low-income students, and our English language learners are not forgotten. prgtoken Just as the administration led Department of Education provided after the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002, the administration led Department of Education worked to enact regulations and provide States with guidance and technical assistance to properly implement ESSA. After work for nearly a year and feedback from more than 20,000 education stakeholders, the Department published its final accountability, State plans, and reporting regulations in November 2016. The regulations provided broad flexibility for State and local school systems to improve student outcomes in their States and districts while ensuring all students receive an excellent and well- round
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Brian Schatz (Democrat, HI) \u2014 2017-3-14

what should we call it? What do we call this new bill the s are rushing prgtoken through to take away healthcare from millions of Americans? Is it Care? Is it RyanCare? prgtoken It is important to remember that both Paul Ryan and President are branding experts. The President put his name on a line of steaks. He put his name on a magazine, on hotels. Then, here is the of the House, who has worked pretty hard to be thought of, at least in this town, as a policy wonk and serious thinker, who has branded everything he has worked on from the Ryan budget to ``A Better Way.'' Yet neither leader of the Party wants to own this thing. That is because Care is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have ever seen. prgtoken The process has been a total mess, and this is despite the fact that the s had 7 years to work on a plan. At first, they were thinking about doing this without getting a score from the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO. Then they realized that even their own Members--even their loyal soldiers--did not want to vote on something without knowing how much it would cost or how many people would lose healthcare. prgtoken Now they are saying the score either does not matter or it is wrong except for the areas in which they like the score. They spent the last 48 hours trashing the CBO, when there is plenty of evidence that for the last 8 years, they referred to the CBO as an expert source when it fit their needs. prgtoken Look, the legislative process requires hearings, expert testimony, and that is not a mere formality. That is how you get a decent product. For all of the complaints about the way the ACA was passed, they did have hearings; they had discussions. It took over a year. President , himself, even went to the retreat and personally engaged in policy. prgtoken Moving this fast without having hearings is the kind of thing you do when naming a post office or doing some other noncontroversial measure, or it is the kind of thing you do for something that you don't want people to look at very closely because, with every moment that passes, this coalition frays, if it ever existed in the first place. prgtoken Now you have criticism from literally the left, right, and center. That is, in part, because no one saw this coming. No one expected a bill that would look like this because during the campaign this administration promised not to cut Medicaid. It promised that everyone--every single American--would have health insurance, but here we are. If Care becomes law, 14 million people will lose their healthcare next year. Let me repeat that. In just 1 year, 14 million Americans will no longer have the health insurance they were promised. prgtoken I want to talk about what that means, what will it mean if people no longer have healthcare. prgtoken This week, the Washington Post featured the stories of people in a single county
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Debbie Stabenow (Democrat, MI) \u2014 2017-3-14

before the distinguished Senator from Maryland leaves the floor, I want to thank him for his powerful advocacy on behalf of his citizens. And I would only say ``amen'' as he was speaking because there is so much at stake for the moms and dads and kids and grandpas and grandmas in Michigan and Maryland. And that is why we are on the floor speaking out so strongly and fighting so hard to defeat a very bad proposal. prgtoken Let me start by indicating that what is being debated right now in the House, the Care proposal, is not what President promised. It is just not what he promised. He said it would be great. He said that people would get as good healthcare or better healthcare and that it would cost less. We know that is simply not true. prgtoken According to a FOX News report on the increase of people who would no longer have healthcare, be able to get medical care, be able to go to a doctor under the new Care plan, 14 million people would lose their healthcare, be unable to take their children to a doctor, just in the next year, by next year. People will have to go to the emergency room rather than a family doctor. Rather than being able to take care of a cold or something minor for their children, chances are that it would become something very serious before they would be able to be in a position to take them to a doctor or, more likely, an emergency room. prgtoken We know that in the next 10 years, we are talking about 24 million Americans--moms, dads, grandpas, grandmas, kids who would no longer be able to see a doctor and no longer have health insurance. prgtoken Care would also cost 7 million people who have an employer right now who is providing them health insurance so that they can get to the doctor and care for their family--7 million people would lose the insurance they have through their employer right now. That is not making things better. There would be 7 million people in that situation. prgtoken This is really a triple-whammy for middle-class families across our country and certainly for people in Michigan. There would be higher costs, less coverage, and more taxes. prgtoken I believe we need to join with AARP and our doctors, hospitals, nurses, people who treat cancer, Alzheimer's, breast cancer, juvenile diabetes, and all of the other people who care for and advocate on behalf of loved ones or themselves, people who need to be able to see a doctor and get healthcare coverage. We need to say no to the Care plan that is being proposed in the House. prgtoken One thing that is really outrageous in this proposal is a senior tax that allows insurance companies to hike up rates on older Americans. It is right in the budget report. This is in the budget report we have now received. They are saying that in 2026--in 10 years--a single woman or man 64 years of age making $26,500 a year who currently pays $1,700 for their health insurance would suddenly get a bill
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Ron Wyden (Democrat, OR) \u2014 2017-3-14

the Senate has been digging into the legal quagmire of drug testing the unemployed. I would like to begin by saying that no matter where a Senator comes down on the issue of drug testing, my view is that this measure before us is simply bizarre. prgtoken If, like me, you believe that drug testing is ineffective and mean- spirited, you ought to oppose this measure because it simply vilifies unemployed workers who are actually less likely to use drugs than the general population. prgtoken For those Senators who support drug testing, this measure blows up what has been a bipartisan compromise and a Labor Department rule allowing select testing to go forward. The result of this measure passing would actually be to block testing from going forward. prgtoken The fact is that the courts have ruled that suspicionless drug testing violates the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. That is why there is now actually a rule that is narrow. prgtoken We have the courts expressing skepticism about this, and there is actually a rule that is narrow so that, in effect, States that are doing this drug testing have what amounts to guardrails to avoid running afoul of the Constitution. If you pass this measure, you will throw out the guardrails, opening up, in my view, the possibility of yet more litigation on Fourth Amendment grounds. prgtoken Now, as I touched on in my opening comments, there isn't evidence that unemployment insurance recipients use drugs any more frequently than the general population. In fact, studies actually indicate that they are less likely to use illegal drugs than the general population. So this idea that somehow there is a presumption of irresponsible conduct and guilt is just baseless. prgtoken To be eligible for unemployment insurance, workers have to have substantial recent work experience. They have to be unemployed through no fault of their own. Workers can only collect unemployment benefits if they are actively searching for work and available to work. prgtoken For States that have implemented drug testing policies, there is evidence that the costs dwarf the potential savings. The costs of operating drug testing programs are charged to State health and human services accounts, and I think we all understand that those have been squeezed mightily by the effort to treat opioid addiction. In my view, instead of wasting money by drug testing Americans who are looking for jobs, the States ought to be putting those very same dollars toward prgtoken substance abuse treatment, given the fact that opioid addiction has hit our country like a wrecking ball. prgtoken Moreover, we have said that fighting opioid addiction ought to be a bipartisan cause. If s wanted to do everything possible to fight addiction, they shouldn't be going forward with Care, a bill that would be a disastrous setback when it comes to fighting opioid addiction. The fact is that
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Chris Van Hollen (Democrat, MD) \u2014 2017-3-14

I rise today to talk about the so- called healthcare bill coming out of the House of Representatives which has been supported by the President. prgtoken We just yesterday got the report from the Congressional Budget Office which analyzes this legislation and its impact on Americans. What we find in great detail and with great clarity is that this Care legislation is a huge tax windfall to the wealthiest Americans at the expense of affordable healthcare for tens of millions of our fellow citizens. It is time the Senate begin to pay attention to what is happening in this legislation. prgtoken Someone might look at this and now call it not ``Care'' but `` doesn't care'' because what we find out is that in the very first year, in 2018, 14 million Americans will lose their health coverage--14 million in the very first year this is implemented. Those are moms, dads, kids, people of all ages--our fellow Americans. Just 2 years after that, beginning in 2020, we are going to see 21 million of our fellow citizens lose their access to health coverage. Let me be clear. When we say they lose their access to affordable care, we are talking about compared to what they have right now under the Affordable Care Act, under Care. So in the year 2020, 21 million Americans who have access to affordable care through the Affordable Care Act are going to lose it, and within 10 years, that will rise to 24 million of our fellow citizens. prgtoken Not only are those millions of Americans going to lose their health care in the early years of this new plan, people are going to see their premiums spike in the individual market. We have heard understandable complaints about the increase in premiums in the Affordable Care Act exchanges. There are commonsense things we can do to fix it. Many of us have put forward proposals to do that, but this will actually dramatically spike up to 20 percent premiums in those markets in the early years. Who gets especially hard hit? Well, older Americans. Americans between 47 years old and 64 years old, before they are old enough to receive Medicare but when they are old enough to be potentially experiencing many healthcare issues. prgtoken In fact, if you look at the Congressional Budget Office report, and I know people sometimes gloss over the fine print, but table 4 indicates that if you are a 64-year-old with an income of $26,000 a year, your premium is going to increase from $1,700 a year to a whopping $14,600 per year. That is in the Congressional Budget Office report, but you know what, AARP, they believe it. They are on full alert, letting Americans throughout the country know how damaging this will be to older Americans who will, all of a sudden, see their premiums, their copays, and their deductibles going through the roof. It is going to become absolutely unaffordable for those older Americans to get health insurance. prgtoken On top of that, despite what we a