mesut/congress_speeches huggingface dataset:
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5698, PROTECT AND SERVE ACT OF 2018; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 2372, VETERANS CEMETERY BENEFIT CORRECTION ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2...
Bradley Scott Schneider (Democrat, IL) \u2014 2018-5-16

I rise today in strong opposition to the cruel and partisan safety net cuts masquerading as the farm bill. prgtoken The farm bill has long been a partisan cause, offering assistance and security to farmers and needy families alike in a way that both and s can support. But this extreme bill cuts more than $23 billion from nutrition assistance programs through eligibility restrictions, kicking a projected 1 million households off the SNAP program and reducing benefits for millions more. prgtoken Let me be clear: these are vital, lifesaving benefits to help Americans put food on the table during moments of need. The average family spends just 10 months on SNAP, receiving assistance just long enough to get back on their feet. At the same time, the program helps set our kids up for success. Hungry children perform worse in school, and studies have shown that children on SNAP achieve higher test scores and are more likely to graduate from high school. Children on SNAP achieve higher test scores and succeed, and they have the opportunity to do well later in life. prgtoken , the partisan approach was the wrong way on tax reform, it was the wrong way on healthcare, and it is the wrong way now. I urge my colleagues to abandon this party-line legislation and instead approach the farm bill in the fair, bipartisan manner we have in the past.
MIGHT CANNOT MAKE WRONG RIGHT
Al Green (Democrat, TX) \u2014 2018-5-16

it is always an honor to stand in the well of the House. I consider this an extraordinary privilege. prgtoken , there are seminal moments in time, moments in time that can impact the rest of time; seminal moments, sometimes where wrong is placed on the throne, where might is used to justify wrong; seminal moments in time, but, , might cannot make wrong right. prgtoken Might cannot make wrong right; it can only prolong wrong. prgtoken Seminal moments in time, where might is used to justify wrong. prgtoken Might did not make slavery right. There were those who used false religiosity to try to justify slavery. They had the might, they had the power, they could impose their will, but might will not make wrong right. prgtoken Might did not make segregation right, to force people to go to separate areas, to use a level of power to impose an indecency upon a people. Might can never make wrong right. prgtoken , might has not made invidious discrimination right. It still exists today. No matter how much power we have, we will not make it right simply because we have the power to try to justify it with the might that we have. prgtoken Finally, , might will not make bigotry emanating from the Presidency right. It will not. prgtoken There are many who want to just let it go, let it go, the bigotry, put it behind us. prgtoken Bigotry emanating from the Presidency impacts this country. It gives this country a stained image in the world. prgtoken The President represents this country. He represents every one of us. We may differ with him, but he is the standard-bearer. The bigotry that emanates from the Presidency is something that we all have to concern ourselves with. We can't just say it is all over with, let's let that go. prgtoken Yes, it has happened and it continues to happen, and might will not make it right. prgtoken He has power, but his power is not going to cause his invidious and harmful commentaries to become right. prgtoken I am here today to simply say this, , that while the President has the power, impeachment is the remedy. prgtoken A President who has said that there were some good people among those in Charlottesville; a President who would ban Muslims from the country; a President who has said LGBTQ persons shouldn't be in the military; a President who has called the sons of some professional athletes--called their mother's dogs, SOBs; a President who has said that in----
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Charles E. Schumer (Democrat, NY) \u2014 2018-5-16

as the minority, we typically cannot move legislation on the floor without the consent of the majority leader. But under the rules governing congressional review, any group of 30 Senators can petition to discharge a CRA--a Congressional Review Act--from the committee and bring it to the floor subject to a majority vote. That is what Senator Markey has just done with the CRA on net neutrality, and the vote that just concluded means the full Senate will now consider it, because I believe there were 52 votes in favor. prgtoken For the first time in this Congress, the majority will be called to vote on an issue that I suspect they would rather avoid. prgtoken Net neutrality is a complex issue, but an incredibly consequential one. At stake is the future of the internet, which until this point in our history, has remained free and open, accessible and affordable to most Americans. That fundamental equality of access is what has made the internet so dynamic--a catalyst for innovation, a tool for learning, a means of instant and worldwide communication. prgtoken To ensure the internet stayed that way, the -era FCC instituted net neutrality rules to prevent large internet service providers from segmenting the internet into fast and slow lanes, from selling faster service to folks who could pay and slower service to others--we didn't want that--and from charging customers more for their favorite sites, divvying up the internet into packages like cable TV. prgtoken Why was this so important? Because if large cable and internet companies were allowed to do this, the internet wouldn't operate on a level playing field. Big corporations and folks who could pay would enjoy the benefits of fast internet and speedy delivery to their customers while startups and small businesses, public schools, average folks, including communities of color and rural Americans, could well be disadvantaged. Net neutrality protected everyone and prevented large ISPs from discriminating against any customers. prgtoken That era--the era of a free and open internet--unfortunately will soon come to an end. In December, the -led FCC voted to repeal the net neutrality rules, and on June 11 of this year, that repeal will go into effect. It may not be a cataclysm on day one, but sure as rain, if internet service providers are given the ability to start charging more for preferred service, they will find a way to do it. prgtoken So the ic position is very simple: Let's treat the internet like the public good that it is. We don't let water companies or phone companies discriminate against customers. We don't restrict access to interstate highways, saying: You can ride on the highway, and you can't. We shouldn't do that with the internet either. That is what the ic net neutrality CRA would ensure. prgtoken We appreciate that three s joined on the motion to proceed to our resolution. We hope more will co
Net Neutrality (Executive Session)
Maria Cantwell (Democrat, WA) \u2014 2018-5-16

from Hawaii, and our sympathy is with the State of Hawaii as they respond to this volcanic eruption. I noticed on the news this morning that they were referencing it could be as bad as Mount St. Helens. Trust me, that had a devastating impact on our State. I hope that all Federal agencies are helping in whatever ways they can with Hawaii's natural disaster. prgtoken I also thank her for talking about the importance of net neutrality. I, too, have come to the floor to defend the open internet. It is a pro-consumer, pro-innovation rule that we have to build on because it is worth 7 percent of our GDP and 6.9 million jobs. That is what the internet economy is. prgtoken The net neutrality rules that we are fighting for today have four bright-line rules that help businesses, help consumers, and help our internet economy to grow. They are these: No. 1, don't block content; No. 2, don't throttle content--that is, don't slow it down--and No. 3, don't create paid prioritization, which is like in the Burger King ad saying: If you want the next Whopper available, pay $15. I think they did a pretty good job of showing what would happen if you had every business operating that way. No. 4 is transparency, to make sure that you know exactly what you are getting charged for. prgtoken The -era Federal Communications Commission adopted rules that basically protected consumers and businesses on those four things. Why did they do that? Because there were some who were trying to eke their way into making more money off of consumers and businesses on what is basic service. prgtoken Title II was the regulatory framework that the -era FCC used to make sure that consumers were protected. They were the strongest tools available, and they helped to make sure that there was not monopolistic behavior that would harm businesses. prgtoken The rule that was established by the then-Federal Communications Commission was an open internet with the FCC being the cop on the beat. That is to say, if you have these rules, you also have to have someone who is going to enforce them, someone who is going to look at the monopolistic behaviors of cable companies or providers and say: That is unfair to consumers and businesses. prgtoken But under the -era FCC, all of those rules were thrown out. That is why we are here today. I and my colleagues are saying that we want to go back to the protections of the internet that are called ``net neutrality'' to make sure that the FCC--instead of a passive entity that just OKs every charge that cable companies want to do--says: These are rules about not slowing down content, not engaging in prgtoken monopolistic behavior. These things are wrong, and we are going to be the policeman on the beat. prgtoken The FCC can protect consumers and innovators, and they can make sure that internet traffic does not violate an open internet. But, as I said, the -era FCC is tryi
AGRICULTURE AND NUTRITION ACT OF 2018
Raúl M. Grijalva (Democrat, AZ) \u2014 2018-5-16

. Mr. Chair, I oppose the farm bill. It would hurt low- and middle-income families, take breakfast and lunch from children across this country, and fail hardworking farmers. prgtoken It also undermines one of the Nation's most successful and popular conservation laws, the Endangered Species Act, by removing the requirement for EPA to consult with expert wildlife agencies on the impact of pesticides to imperiled wildlife. prgtoken Pesticides are known to have been the cause of the dramatic decline of many species and a threat to public health. It should not be dispensed with in this legislation. prgtoken The provisions in this legislation that are anti-environment, anti- public health, anti-nutrition, and anti-working families are cause for opposition. I urge a ``no'' vote.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Lucille Roybal-Allard (Democrat, CA) \u2014 2018-5-16

on Tuesday, May 15, I was unavoidably detained due to weather conditions and was not present for Roll Call votes 181, 182, and 183. Had I been present, I would have voted: prgtoken Yea on Roll Call 181, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 613, the Lieutenant Osvaldo Albarati Correctional Officer Self- Protection Act; prgtoken Yea on Roll Call 182, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4854, the Justice Served Act; and prgtoken Yea on Roll Call 183, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 285, expressing the sense of the United States House of Representatives that Congress and the President should empower the creation of police and community alliances designed to enhance and improve communication and collaboration between members of the law enforcement community and the public they serve.
FARM BILL
Earl Blumenauer (Democrat, OR) \u2014 2018-5-16

I enjoyed listening to my colleague from California talk about his deep concerns and reservations about the farm bill that is slowly grinding its way, perhaps, toward the floor being considered today by the Rules Committee. prgtoken While we have somewhat different perspectives and different districts, we are united in the fact that this farm bill does not remotely reflect the needs of the American public. One of the problems is that we fail to address the disparate array of subsidies under the farm bill, benefiting a few States, a few districts, a few types of farming operations, and ignoring the rest. prgtoken The famous nutrition professor, Marion Nestle, of NYU has written a great essay, ``The Farm Bill Drove Me Insane,'' dealing with her attempts to try to understand and rationalize it. prgtoken One of the most memorable portions is how she describes what an American diet would look like if it was based on the way that our farm bill subsidies are arrayed. The diet would consist of a giant corn fritter because 78 percent of the farm bill resources goes to the production of industrial corn and soy, not fruits and vegetables, which would be a tiny microscopic part of that plate. There would be a little hamburger patty because that is less than 5 percent, and there would be a little cup of milk. And she points out that that meal, based on the farm bill allocation, would be accompanied by a giant napkin because 13 percent of the farm bill is allocated to cotton subsidies. prgtoken The farm bill shortchanges the vast majority of American farmers and ranchers, who are not heavily subsidized, who produce food--the fruits, vegetables, and orchard, products that deal with nurseries. The majority of States and the majority of farmers and ranchers are shut out. prgtoken There is an area of crop insurance subsidy. I will tell you, I was stunned when I read the Statement of Administration Policy because they are concerned with two areas, one dealing with a necessary subsidy for people with nutrition assistance. They are afraid that a few poor people would have access to lower cost food through the Food Stamp program. They want to crank that down, limit it, and force people to work. prgtoken Well, if you look at the farm bill that they are supporting, they are doing nothing to encourage wealthy farming interests to rely less on subsidization. They are concerned about expanding the subsidizes for people under the SNAP program. prgtoken At the same time, we are given a farm bill that explodes the limits on the amount of subsidy that can flow to wealthy farming and ranching interests, and it expands the subsidy so that nieces and nephews and cousins are eligible. People who aren't working on the ranch are somehow eligible for Federal largesse, but they would deny hungry people, or near hungry people, low-income people, that same sort of benefit. prgtoken There are also concerns that they want to crank down on the environ
IN RECOGNITION OF THE ASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF GLENDALE'S 75TH ANNIVERSARY
Adam B. Schiff (Democrat, CA) \u2014 2018-5-16

I rise today to honor the Assistance League of Glendale upon its seventy-fifth anniversary. The Assistance League of Glendale began with a small group of women dedicated to performing selfless acts for the local community and has since developed into a multifaceted philanthropic organization targeted at providing aid to women, men and children in need of guidance, assistance and care. The members work to ensure that the needs of children and seniors in Glendale are met with care and respect, and dedicate thousands of hours to improve the city. Committed to promoting education and enriching the lives of students, the Assistance League of Glendale provides clothing to elementary school children in need, reading support and books, as well as thousands of dollars in scholarships for students graduating from high schools and college in Glendale. In addition to its exceptional work for young students, the Assistance League of Glendale provides social programs and meals for seniors, weekly training for developmentally challenged adults to learn vocational skills, and quality pre-owned merchandise as well as clothing at affordable prices. This volunteer-driven organization continues its mission to assist and uplift as it strives to address the increasing needs of the community with innovative, dynamic and creative philanthropic programs that promote emotional and physical well-being, and over the years has evolved to meet the shifting needs of the community. The Assistance League of Glendale serves as a brilliant example of the power of volunteerism and what people can do when inspired to connect with others in the spirit of humanitarianism. The time, effort, and care that the organization has given to the community is outstanding, and the residents of Glendale and the greater Los Angeles area have benefited greatly from their work. I ask all Members to join with me in commending the Assistance League of Glendale for seventy-five years of dedicated, outstanding and invaluable service to the community.
FIXING AMERICA'S INFRASTRUCTURE
Daniel T. Kildee (Democrat, MI) \u2014 2018-5-16

Americans depend on good roads and bridges to get to work every day and to take care of their families. Good infrastructure drives our economy. prgtoken Americans depend on water systems to provide clean and safe drinkable water. But in this country, we have failed to make the necessary investments in water infrastructure, in roads and bridges, in essential infrastructure that is important to drive our economy. prgtoken I will work with anyone on any side of the question on both sides of the aisle to make sure that we invest in America's infrastructure. It is what we need to do to grow our economy, but, unfortunately, what the President has suggested really puts the burden on State and local governments, communities like the ones I represent. My own hometown of Flint, for example, if they had the money to put into their water system to prevent the disaster that occurred, they long ago would have done this. We need--our communities need a strong Federal partner. prgtoken And the , we offer A Better Deal. We have a plan to rebuild America's infrastructure. This is what the Congress ought to be doing. We ought not wait for the President to offer his suggestion. We should do the work ourselves. It is long overdue.
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Patrick J. Leahy (Democrat, VT) \u2014 2018-5-16

. Mr President, millions of Americans were outraged last year when the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, voted to repeal the strong and enforceable net neutrality rules that were adopted in 2015. As a supporter of a free and open internet, I share the public's outrage over the loss of these critical protections, which is why I am voting in favor of this resolution to restore the previous rules. prgtoken By repealing net neutrality rules, the FCC and its supporters in Congress have achieved little more than to plunge consumers and small businesses into a fog of uncertainty. Instead of having concrete legal protections in place against blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization, internet users now have little more than vague promises from broadband providers about how they will treat content online. These promises could disappear with little notice or no recourse for those affected. This is the wrong way to approach policy for the greatest engine of economic growth and free speech ever devised. prgtoken The uncertainty created by s at the FCC and blessed by too many here in Congress jeopardizes the success of small businesses and startups across the country. One of the main concerns I hear from small businesses in Vermont is fear of paid prioritization. Without clear rules in place, broadband providers can set up pay-to-play schemes that disadvantage small businesses against deep-pocketed competitors. prgtoken In a pay-to-play online world, small businesses will be forced to decide whether or not to pay tolls in order to avoid being stuck in the slow lane. These tolls do nothing to promote innovation, but they would impose a tremendous cost on entrepreneurs. These costs would come at the expense of investing in new equipment, new products, or new jobs. For those who choose not to pay, the cost would be access to customers, who today already make decisions based on how fast a page or application loads. A few seconds of lag time can mean the difference between a sale made or a sale lost to a competitor. prgtoken Net neutrality rules matter because they provide small businesses with the certainty that paid prioritization will not happen. The promises and statements made by leading broadband providers following the repeal of the rules too often make no mention at all of their stance on paid prioritization. Others have quietly deleted promises not to engage in this behavior from their website. In February, the CEO of Sprint was quoted comparing the internet to roads, saying that, on many roads, ``you have a faster road and you pay more. There's nothing wrong with that.'' Concerns about paid prioritization cannot be dismissed when CEOs of leading companies are speaking openly about the benefits of toll roads on the internet. prgtoken This should not be a partisan issue. s and alike should want to provide the small business community with the certainty that the internet will remain