mesut/congress_speeches huggingface dataset:
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Cory A. Booker (Democrat, NJ) \u2014 2017-3-21

I rise to join my voice with a growing chorus of citizens, as well as members of the scientific community and colleagues, who are deeply disturbed by this CRA to repeal vital wildlife protections from Federal land in Alaska. prgtoken Before I speak on this CRA, I would like to be clear that I am not someone who believes all regulations are good. In fact, I don't believe we should be trying to regulate our way out of all of our problems. I am proud of the work I have done, with people on both sides of the aisle, in an effort to make our government work smarter and more efficiently for the benefit of my constituents in New Jersey, as well as all Americans, but today I am profoundly disappointed. prgtoken Instead of working to create bipartisan policies that will serve all Americans, we are now considering a CRA resolution--unfortunately, one of many ones of this type--that prioritizes special interests above the good of the public, and it is deeply unpopular, in fact, with the public at large. prgtoken I oppose this CRA that would repeal the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's rule called the non-subsistence take of wildlife on national wildlife refuges in Alaska rule. The rule was finalized by the Fish and Wildlife Service in August of 2016, with the clear goal to forever ban unnecessary and extremely cruel methods of killing bears and wolves and other animals on more than 70 million acres of public land managed under our Federal National Wildlife Refuge System in Alaska. prgtoken Let's be clear. When it says the word ``take''--that it prevents the ``take'' of wildlife--that means the killing of wildlife. Specifically, the rule prevents inhumane killing of animals on our wildlife refuges. prgtoken Examples of the rule are: prohibits the killing of mother bears and their cubs. It prevents the killing of wolves and pups in their dens. It prohibits using planes to track and kill bears. It prohibits using snares to strangle and kill bears, steel traps to kill bears, and it prohibits baiting and killing of grizzly bears. prgtoken Why was this rule issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service in the first place? Our national wildlife refuges are public lands that exist for the benefit of all Americans. Refuge lands are managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service for the express purpose of conserving natural diversity in wildlife populations. This means that any management activity that favors certain species over others is inconsistent with the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge. prgtoken It doesn't mean that hunting is not allowed on Federal land. Hunting is one of many permitted practices on wildlife refuges, and this rule does not prevent hunting on any wildlife refuge. What is permitted on refuges under this law is the indiscriminate killing of bears and wolves in an attempt to boost populations of moose and caribou. prgtoken Unfortunately, this is exactly how Alaska has been managing its wildlife since 1994 on State
TRUMPCARE
Charles E. Schumer (Democrat, NY) \u2014 2017-3-21

the s plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Their bill is such a mess and is proving so deeply unpopular that s are playing a game of hot potato with it. Ryan does not want to call it RyanCare. The administration does not want to call it Care. They are pointing at each other and hoping the other one takes responsibility and blame. prgtoken President , who has tried to put his name on nearly everything in his career--ties, steaks, water--does not want his name on this bill. Well, the President himself is here on the Hill today to sell the bill to House s. Make no mistake, this is Care, the President's bill. Every American should know that if s ultimately pass this bill, President is behind it, and s will have helped him every step of the way. prgtoken So voters, particularly supporters, who would be hurt most by this Care should remember that when your premiums start going up, President did that. When your insurance does not cover all the things it used to, President did that. If you are older and insurance companies are now charging you exorbitant premiums, several times what you used to pay, President did that. When 24 million fewer Americans have health insurance while the wealthiest Americans get a huge tax break, you can be sure President did that too. prgtoken Even now, the changes House s are making to buy off different factions of their caucus are making the bill more harsh. Some of these changes will further weaken Medicaid and result in even fewer Americans with healthcare coverage. Though s claim they are fixing the bill's unfair tax on older Americans, they are not. The truth is, the age tax is still in the bill. People in their fifties and sixties still stand to lose big time. prgtoken The larger truth is, s are not trying to make this bill better. They are just trying to make it pass with all their various factions pulling them in different directions. There is no better evidence of that than the new ``Senate slush fund,'' a $75 billion earmark the House is giving the Senate to buy off Senators who don't want to vote for this bill. prgtoken What happened to our fiscal conservative friends in the House--no unnecessary expenditures. A $75 billion slush fund. It doesn't even say what it does. Wow. Unbelievable. Many Senators don't want to vote on the House bill because it is going to crush older Americans with a new age tax, but make no mistake about it, the Senate slush fund is not going to fix that problem at all. prgtoken Here is the biggest problem. The consequences of Care are so bad for working Americans and older Americans that my friend the majority leader may rush it through the Chamber after we get it from the House. He has already said Care is going to bypass committees and go right
Introductory Statement on S. 691
Tim Kaine (Democrat, VA) \u2014 2017-3-21

. . I am pleased to reintroduce the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2017. Indian Affairs previously voted our bill out of committee in the 113th Congress and by voice vote in the 114th Congress, and we remain hopeful that the full Senate will finally vote to recognize our Tribes in the 115th Congress. prgtoken This month marks the 400th anniversary of the death of Pocahontas, the famous daughter of Chief Powhatan, whose tribes were among the first to make contact with English settlers in the 17th century. Today, as we introduce this bill, a delegation from the Commonwealth, including Chief Stephen Adkins of the Chickahominy, Chief Anne Richardson of the Rappahannock, and Chief Emeritus Ken Adams of the Upper Mattaponi, is in England to commemorate the anniversary, including a presentation and ceremony at St. George's Church, Gravesend to honor Pocahontas. prgtoken The ceremony reflects the sovereign recognition that the British Government grants to our Virginia tribes, which the United States has yet to acknowledge. This legislation is critically important because it strives toward reconciling an historic wrong for Virginia and the Nation. While the Virginia Tribes have received official recognition from the Commonwealth of Virginia, acknowledgement and officially- recognized status from the Federal Government has been considerably more difficult due to their systematic mistreatment over the past century. prgtoken More specifically, Virginia's Racial Integrity Act, a State law in effect from 1924 to 1967, stripped the identities of the Tribal members of Virginia's Indian Tribes. The act changed the racial identifications of those who lacked White ancestry to ``colored'' on birth certificates during that period. In addition, five of the six courthouses that held the vast majority of the Virginia Indian Tribal records were destroyed in the Civil War. Those records were crucial for documenting the history of the Tribes for recognition by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Federal Acknowledgement. prgtoken Furthermore, Virginia Indians made peace too soon when they signed the Treaty of Middle Plantation with England in 1677. This predated the creation of the United States of America by just short of 100 years, and the Founding Fathers of the United States never recognized the treaty. Therefore, unlike tribes that received Federal recognition upon the signing of a treaty with the United States, the Virginia Tribes did not receive Federal recognition because they made peace with England prior to the founding of our Nation. prgtoken I am proud of Virginia's recognized Indian Tribes and their contributions to our Commonwealth. The Virginia Tribes are not only part of our history, but they remain ever present today. We go to school together, work together, and serve our Commonwealth and Nation together every day. These contributions should be acknowledged, and
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1101, SMALL BUSINESS HEALTH FAIRNESS ACT OF 2017
Jared Polis (Democrat, CO) \u2014 2017-3-21

Margo Sanger-Katz said, in part: ``But one piece of context has gone little noticed: The bill would actually result in more people being uninsured than if Care were simply repealed. Getting rid of the major coverage provisions and regulations of Care would cost 23 million Americans their health insurance. . . . In other words, 1 million more Americans would have health insurance with a clean repeal than with the replacement plan, according to CBO estimates.'' prgtoken So it is just unclear what the s are trying to do here. If the goal was to come up with something worse than repealing the Affordable Care Act, they certainly reached that goal: less people will have coverage, more tax breaks for billionaires, higher rate increases for most Americans. On every account, it actually underperforms a cleaner repeal. prgtoken What wanted to do is improve the Affordable Care Act. And I want to be clear, none of us have ever argued the Affordable Care Act is perfect. I pushed for fixes. So many of my ic and colleagues have pushed for fixes to strengthen the law, like repealing the medical device tax, which adds cost to health care, and altering the Cadillac tax on insurance premiums. prgtoken In the Education and the Workforce Committee, I actually offered three amendments to show some of the ideas that I and some of my colleagues had to improve the Affordable Care Act. They offered an amendment to establish a public option in the exchange, to provide a baseline of competition in every ZIP Code in this country--defeated on a partisan vote. I should add that my proposal for a public option--and I am a cosponsor of the bill to do the same--would actually reduce the budget deficit by over $50 billion. prgtoken I also offered an amendment for pricing transparency to help make the market in health care work. One of the major market fallacies in health care is a Byzantine pricing structure where, frequently, different entities and people are paying different amounts for the same thing. If we had simple pricing transparency and quality transparency, we would go a long way towards making markets work in health care--defeated on a party vote. prgtoken Finally, I offered an amendment that would have allowed reimportation of prescription drugs. When you have a situation where--we have a popular example of this in the EpiPen, costing Americans who need access to the EpiPen over $400, and yet in neighboring countries-- Canada, Australia--EpiPens cost $40 or $50, one-tenth as much. prgtoken It is not unique to the EpiPen. By no means is that an exception to the rule. In fact, it is the rule. By allowing reimportation of prescription drugs, a proposal that was backed in the Senate in a bipartisan way by many of my ic and colleagues as a budget amendment, we could actually reduce costs in health care, making the goal of expanding coverage even
VETERANS 2ND AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT
Elizabeth H. Esty (Democrat, CT) \u2014 2017-3-21

on March 16th, 2017, during debate on H.R. 1181, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, the official positions of several veteran services organizations were discussed. To clarify remarks I made during that debate, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) did not take an official position on H.R. 1181 prior to the House's consideration of the bill, nor has IAVA publicly discussed why they have not taken a position on this bill in the 115th Congress. I regret any confusion that may have been caused by my remarks.
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NATIONAL GUARD HOME RULE ACT
Eleanor Holmes Norton (Democrat, DC) \u2014 2017-3-21

today I introduce the District of Columbia National Guard Home Rule Act, a bill that would give the mayor of the District of Columbia authority to deploy the D.C. National Guard, after consultation with the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard, with the President retaining authority on federal matters. In local emergencies, including natural disasters and civil disturbances unrelated to national or homeland security, the mayor of the District should have the same authority that governors exercise over the National Guard in their states. Each governor--including the governors of three U.S. territories with Guards--has the authority to deploy the National Guard to protect his or her state or territory, just as local militia did historically. prgtoken The National Guards in the 50 states and territories operate under dual federal and local jurisdiction. Yet only the President currently has the authority to deploy the D.C. National Guard for both national and local purposes. Today, by far the most likely need for the D.C. National Guard here would be for natural disasters, such as hurricanes and floods, and to restore order in the wake of civil disturbances. The mayor, who knows the city better than any federal official and who works closely with federal security officials, should be able to call on the D.C. National Guard for local natural disasters and civil disturbances, after consultation with the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard. The President should be focused on national matters, including homeland security, not local D.C. matters. Homeland security authority, with respect to the D.C. National Guard, would remain the sole province of the President, along with the power to federalize the D.C. National Guard for federal matters at will. It does no harm to give the mayor authority to deploy the Guard for civil disturbances and natural disasters. However, it could do significant harm to leave the mayor powerless to act quickly. If it makes sense that governors would have control over the deployment of their National Guards, it makes equal sense for the mayor of the District, with a population the size of a small state, to have the same authority. prgtoken The mayor of the District, as chief executive, should have the authority to deploy the D.C. National Guard in instances that do not rise to the level of federal homeland security activities. My bill permits the mayor to only deploy the D.C. National Guard after consultation with the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard. The bill is another important step toward completing the transfer of full self-government powers to the District. Congress began with the passage of the Home Rule Act of 1973, when it delegated most of its authority over District matters to an elected mayor and Council. The bill follows that model. prgtoken I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 372, COMPETITIVE HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM ACT OF 2017
John A. Yarmuth (Democrat, KY) \u2014 2017-3-21

for yielding. prgtoken The one question I think many Americans who follow this debate would be asking now is: What is the rush? What is the rush? prgtoken For 7 years now, our colleagues have consistently said we are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act. More than 60 votes have been taken in this body to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We kept asking: If you are going to repeal it, what are you going to replace it with? You can't just say, do away with it, and leave millions and millions of Americans in the lurch. prgtoken So finally, 2 weeks ago yesterday, we have gotten their answer. Care, RyanCare, the American Health Care Act, call it what you will, we finally got an answer. prgtoken What has happened since those 2 weeks? We had no hearings on this bill. We had quick markups. They lasted a long time, but we had--the bill was introduced Monday night--markups in the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday. And this was on just a steamroller to try to get this accomplished before anybody knew what was in it. prgtoken Now, the CBO report from last week came out indicating things that I think most Americans would be frightened by. 24 million Americans lose their coverage over 10 years; but, more significantly than that, 21 million lose their coverage within 3 years; 14 million next year. prgtoken Consider that. All of the gains in coverage made under the Affordable Care Act done away with in 3 years. Premiums going up for Americans. prgtoken I can't believe Ryan tried to put lipstick on a pig. He said he thought the CBO report was really encouraging because, 10 years from now, premiums would be 10 percent lower. The only way they are 10 percent lower is because, under the Care, older Americans, 50 and older, in the individual market get priced out of the market with huge premium increases. prgtoken So they are gone. Only younger and healthier people are in there. Yes, premiums would be lower for them. Other people are out of business. prgtoken So that report comes out, causing a great deal of consternation on the part of the sponsors and supporters. They bring it, schedule it to come to the floor on Thursday, March 23, because they think that is cute because that is the seventh anniversary of the passage of the Affordable Care Act. But, again, no hearings, no real analysis; and what is more important, no CBO revised report on the changes that were introduced late last night. prgtoken This is outrageous. And I love to hear my colleagues try to portray the process under which the Affordable Care Act was drafted and considered with some kind of nighttime secretive deal. They weren't here, most of them. I was. prgtoken I was on the Ways and Means Committee, one of the drafting committees. Fourteen months we worked on that legislation--14 months. Seventy-nine hearings in the Congress on that legislation. Hours and hours and hour
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1101, SMALL BUSINESS HEALTH FAIRNESS ACT OF 2017
Neal P. Dunn (Republican, FL) \u2014 2017-3-21

I thank my friend, the gentleman from Alabama, for yielding me time. prgtoken , I rise today in support of H.R. 1101, the Small Business Health Fairness Act. prgtoken As a surgeon in north Florida, I witnessed, firsthand, the disaster that is Care. After Care was passed and implemented, small medical practices across the country were faced with new, crippling regulations that threatened their very existence. prgtoken I ran a small urology practice in Panama City and faced the very devastation that these new regulations on small business imposed. Thankfully, I was able to work with several other small practices to create the Advanced Urology Institute, a 45-physician practice with over 400 employees and offices throughout north Florida. Cooperation and pooling of our resources allowed our practice to reduce costs and to better serve our patients. prgtoken My experience underscores why the Small Business Health Fairness Act is so crucial. The Small Business Health Fairness Act allows small businesses to operate under the same principle when purchasing health insurance for their employees. prgtoken By joining together across State lines through associations, small businesses can achieve the economies of scale enjoyed by big businesses and unions when purchasing health care. It will empower small businesses to purchase better plans at a lower cost, which means working families can get the care they need at a price they can afford. prgtoken It is time to put small business employees on a level playing field with those of large businesses and those in unions. The health insurance market and this bill does just that.
REPUBLICAN HEALTHCARE BILL
John Barrasso (Republican, WY) \u2014 2017-3-21

it was 7 years ago that in Congress passed Care. They promised lower healthcare costs. What they delivered was a Washington mandate prgtoken for expensive insurance that many people found actually wasn't insurance they could use, even though they were forced to buy it. For 7 years, Americans have suffered under the consequences of that decision by this body and by the former President. prgtoken Less than 7 weeks into the administration, s introduced a plan to give Americans real healthcare reform. The American people know that Care has been a disaster, one broken promise after another. I hear about this every weekend when I am home in Wyoming. I heard about it this past weekend. There is now only one insurance company that is willing to offer Care coverage in my entire State. There are 1,000 counties all across the country in the same situation--only one option. This is not a marketplace; it is a monopoly. prgtoken As a doctor who has practiced medicine for 25 years, I can tell you that when it comes to healthcare, the last thing patients want to hear is that they don't have a choice: It is this or nothing. That is why s promised we were going to repeal the restrictions in Care that limit people's choices. We promised to give people options, not mandates. The healthcare bill we are debating now is the first step to keeping that promise. prgtoken The bill starts to give people more choices so they can pick what is right for them and for their families. I want to talk about three ways that it does this. prgtoken First, the bill removes the mandates. It ends both the individual and the employer mandates. It eliminates the penalties that hard-working families have to pay if they decide that overpriced Care insurance isn't right for them. This was one of the most outrageous and unfair parts of the healthcare law. These mandates will be gone. prgtoken Second, the bill that the House is considering cuts taxes. It gets rid of the Care tax on prescription drugs. It gets rid of the Care tax on health insurance. It gets rid of the taxes on artificial appliances, such as pacemakers and artificial joints. Overall, the bill eliminates 15 different taxes. These taxes are obviously passed on to consumers; repealing them helps to bring down the cost of care. prgtoken Third, the repeal bill creates options for people and for States. It encourages people to find creative ways to help make healthcare costs more affordable for them. It expands how people can use health savings accounts, which is a great option for many people. It helps States do innovative things, such as create high risk pools to bring down costs for everybody. It gives States more flexibility when it comes to Medicaid Programs. prgtoken Let's face it: Medicaid is broken, and Care just threw more people onto this second-class health insurance. Just last week, we got evidence