mesut/congress_speeches huggingface dataset:
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mike Crapo (Republican, ID) \u2014 2017-3-29

I rise today to speak about the President's nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. prgtoken Whenever great issues like the future of our Nation's highest Court come before the Senate, it is easy to get lost in the noise and the hyperbole. Listening to the commentary about Judge Gorsuch, I have found it instructive to ask whether critics have actually met him and listened to his philosophy of jurisprudence. prgtoken I have met him, and it is easy to guess that those who oppose him likely have not spoken to him, watched the hearings, or read any of the glowing testimonials from across the political spectrum. The invectives thrown at Judge Gorsuch seem really to be about something else entirely--about anger at the President, disappointment with the election outcome, or concern about holding certain hotly debated topics of the day. It appears that critics could substitute almost any name for Judge Gorsuch in their statements and give them with the same passion and the same concern. prgtoken That is too bad because Judge Gorsuch has been consistently regarded by his peers as pragmatic and among the most gifted legal minds on the Federal bench. The man is intelligent, courteous, and modest. He seeks readily the views of those around him. His approach will be a constructive addition to the U.S. Supreme Court and of benefit to our Nation. His judicial record as a Federal judge flows exactly from what he says, and his message and focus is abundantly clear: judicial modesty and fidelity to the law. prgtoken When our representative government was established in the United States, a heated debate emerged about the purposes and powers of our new Federal institutions. The Founders of our country understood that a system in which lawmaking was detached from accountability was the quickest path to despotism. A coequal judiciary could help temper tyranny and balance the powers of an executive and a legislature stepping over their constitutional powers. The phrase is ``checks and balances'' not ``usurpation.'' prgtoken Alexander Hamilton, who has received much recently renewed attention, wrote at length about the newly imagined judicial branch of our government. In Federalist 78, Hamilton wrote that the judicial branch ``may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.'' prgtoken To the Founders, the division of responsibilities between the three branches of government was clear: Congress would make the laws. The executive would implement them. The judiciary would review the laws for their legality and consistency with the Constitution. Further, the independence of the judiciary would be enhanced through their distinctive selection process, so they could do their jobs without succumbing to swings in popular opinion. Put succinctly by Chief
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Dean Heller (Republican, NV) \u2014 2017-3-29

I appreciate the comments my colleague from Colorado has made on energy. I have an energy speech here, also. We have the same goals, maybe coming from different perspectives, but both the Senator from Colorado and I are trying to achieve the same thing. prgtoken I appreciate his hard work. He and I have worked well together over the years on the Finance Committee, as he mentioned, with the investment tax credits to make alternative energy viable products and industries in both of our States and across this country, so I appreciate his hard work. prgtoken , I come to the floor of the U.S. Senate today to discuss an issue that is extremely important to the State of Nevada, and that is Yucca Mountain. prgtoken For over 30 years, those two words, ``Yucca Mountain,'' have incited frustration and anger for Nevadans across my State. It is not just a mountain 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas; it represents a decade-long fight by some in Washington to ``wrong Nevada.'' prgtoken In 1982, the Congress approved the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and charged the Department of Energy with finding a long-term storage site for the disposal of spent nuclear material. At the time, Yucca Mountain was one of the many proposed geological sites to investigate. prgtoken Unfortunately, in 1987, the act was amended to concentrate only on one place, Yucca Mountain. Nevada, a State without any nuclear powerplants, was legally compelled to bear the sole burden of long-term storage of all of the Nation's nuclear waste. This decision was made on bad politics; it was not made on sound science. Ever since, the debate on solutions to this problem has been one-sided, and the study of alternative solutions has been curtailed. prgtoken Instead of honoring Nevada's persistent scientific and procedural objections to the repository, the Federal Government has spent decades of time and wasted billions of dollars to design and permit Yucca Mountain, all without any notion that Nevada would consent to the project. prgtoken I have spent the past decade in Congress successfully fighting off efforts to force this project on Nevada, and I will continue this fight for as long as I serve my State. prgtoken I want to be clear: Nuclear power is an important part of our Nation's energy portfolio. I am one of the most outspoken s in Congress advocating to make our Nation's energy cleaner and more affordable. Nuclear energy, which represents about 20 percent of our Nation's power production, plays an important role in providing carbon emission-free baseload energy in many States, but Nevada--again, a State without a nuclear powerplant--should not have to shoulder the Nation's entire waste burden. prgtoken We have pursued other strategies to meet Nevada's energy needs. I can share a couple of those examples with you. More than two-thirds of Nevada's energy is produced by natural gas-fired powerplants. Just 2 weeks ago, I was at a gro
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Lamar Alexander (Republican, TN) \u2014 2017-3-29

I notice my distinguished friend was indignant over the Supreme Court debate. I think each of us has a right to have his own opinion. Here is mine. prgtoken There is such a thing called the Thurmond-Leahy rule. It has been in place for a while. I think it reads that after June of a Presidential election year, the Senate will not confirm a prgtoken President's nominees. That is a bipartisan rule that has been enforced by the Senate for several years. Senator McConnell moved it up three months, from June to March--that is true--even though ic leaders said that is exactly what they would have done if the shoe had been on the other foot. prgtoken are saying that as a result of that--the 3-month change-- which is what they said they would have done anyway, they are going to do something that has never been done before: They are going to deny a Supreme Court Justice a nomination by not allowing a majority vote. That has never happened in 230 years. Our nominations have always been decided by a majority vote. There was a little incident in 1968 with Abe Fortas when President Johnson sought to elevate him to Chief Justice, but that has been the tradition in the Senate. We have always approved Presidential nominees by a majority vote, and we have always approved Cabinet members by a majority vote, even controversial ones. We have never required them to get 60 votes--ever--and the same with Federal district judges. And the same was true with Federal circuit judges until the started using the filibuster to require 60 votes, as has been well documented here. So I think people need to know the facts. prgtoken What the are proposing to do next week--quite apart from the fact that Judge Gorsuch is one of the most eminently qualified people we have seen come around in a long time--flies in the face of 230 years of tradition in the Senate by insisting that a Presidential nominee to the Supreme Court requires more than 51 votes to be confirmed. prgtoken I looked very quickly back at my own votes. None of us are perfect, and I am not asking for any merit badges, but I wonder where the are who are trying to do at least what I was trying to do when President was there. I found at least 10 times that I voted for cloture--voted to cut off debate--on controversial nominees with whom I disagreed, and then I voted against them when the vote was 51. prgtoken With Secretary of Labor Perez, cloture was invoked 60 to 40. If I had voted no, that would have denied him his Cabinet position. He is now the chairman of the ic National Committee. I cannot think of any Cabinet member I disagreed more with, other than perhaps the one I am about to mention next, but I thought the President deserved to have his own nominee, and I thought we ought to respect the tradition of never having denied a Cabinet member a position because of a 60-vote requirement. prgtoken Another one
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
David Perdue (Republican, GA) \u2014 2017-3-29

I rise today to speak about one of the greatest honors and privileges that we enjoy here in the Senate. As outlined in article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, one of the real honors of serving here in the Senate is the opportunity to offer advice and consent for nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. prgtoken This body has historically treated it in such a solemn manner that in over 230 years of our history, no nominee to the Supreme Court has ever been denied a seat through the use of a partisan filibuster. Unfortunately, right now, Members--colleagues from the other side of the aisle--are threatening that very precedent. prgtoken As I said on the floor earlier this year, President promised the American people he would nominate an unwavering supporter of the Constitution to fill the vacancy left by the late Justice Scalia. This President has kept his promise. He has nominated somebody who was actually confirmed here in the Senate not that long ago by a voice vote by Members who are still here in the Senate, many of them. This was a nomination to the Tenth Circuit, a role that this man, the nominee, filled with great honor and much distinction. prgtoken Judge Neil Gorsuch's record of service lives up to the highest standards for a Federal judge. His academic and legal records are impeccable. He has demonstrated a keen understanding and appreciation for the rule of law, and he spoke so articulately in hour after hour of interrogation, actually, in his confirmation hearing just last week. Most importantly, Judge Gorsuch has repeatedly demonstrated his commitment to the Constitution and to our founding principles of economic opportunity, fiscal responsibility, limited government, and most important, individual liberty. prgtoken His testimony last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee was masterful. It absolutely convinced me that he is the man for this job. Judge Gorsuch listened to questions, carefully responded thoughtfully, and he gave an indication into his own demeanor that he would use in the Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch listened to questions carefully over and over. He illustrated the ability to show a balance of judgment, which is what we look for in a lifetime appointment like this. He made it abundantly clear that the role of the judicial branch is to interpret--not to make law but to interpret the law. prgtoken In my own individual meeting with Judge Gorsuch, these same qualities stood out. I was very impressed with his disarming nature and ability to talk about issues without necessarily showing bias of his own opinion. Because of all this, I know he will serve as a Justice in the mold of Justice Scalia, that of a balanced judiciary member. prgtoken I should also point out that this is not a partisan view point. Conservatives and liberals have come out in support of Judge Gorsuch's confirmation over and over through the past week since his nomination. Neal Katyal, w
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Roy Blunt (Republican, MO) \u2014 2017-3-29

I certainly agree with the comments just made by our friend from Oklahoma in looking back at the history of the Court. The 200 years of giving judges a vote really is an important thing for us to understand, as hopefully enough Members of the Senate decide between now and sometime next week that the up-or-down vote-- where they get to vote however they want to--is totally appropriate. prgtoken I would like to speak about one other topic that we are dealing with this week. I was here yesterday to talk about Judge Gorsuch. I will likely be back again before this debate is over because it is critically important that he be confirmed. prgtoken , I want to speak for just a minute about what we are also doing this week under the Congressional Review Act. One of the reasons the Court matters is that the Court gets to decide on occasion whether an agency has the legal ability to make a rule, but just because they may have the legal ability to make a rule doesn't mean they should make a rule that stands if the Congress doesn't agree. prgtoken The Congressional Review Act, under the late rulemaking of President , has had a real opportunity to work for, I would say, the first time, but the truth is, it has worked one other time in 2001. In the 25-or-so-year history of the Congressional Review Act until the last few days, the last few weeks, it has been utilized only because it is really only practically available to the Senate and to the House if there are midnight rules, rules that come up at the last minute. prgtoken As of today, the Senate has already passed 11 resolutions that have disapproved those late rules that came in the final days of President 's administration. By the time we finish this process, I think we will be toward a total of maybe 15 rules that would have had a real impact on our economy, that would have had a real impact on job creation, that would have had a real impact on families. Those rules are not going to happen because of the Congressional Review Act. prgtoken I have been an opponent of many of these rules and many of the regulations we have seen over the last 8 years, but they have often been able to become law anyway because the Congress, frankly, couldn't do anything about it. Title X Program prgtoken In particular, I would like to commend Senator Joni Ernst for her work on the resolution of disapproval we expect to consider tomorrow. Senator Ernst's resolution would simply restore the ability of States to set their own criteria for grant recipients under the title X program. prgtoken I would like to remind my colleagues that this rule was issued on December 19, 2016. It took effect January 18, 2017, 2 days before the end of President 's administration. So for 7 years and 363 days, the administration didn't need this rule, but they issued it on the way out the door. prgtoken Overturning this rule would not reduce a
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Cory Gardner (Republican, CO) \u2014 2017-3-29

I come to the floor once again today to talk about the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. prgtoken In the 235 years of our Nation's history with the Constitution, there has never been a successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court Justice. What I mean by that is this: No Supreme Court nominee has ever been rejected by a partisan filibuster on the floor of the Senate. Now, sure, we can argue about the 1968 bipartisan attempt to make sure that then-Associate Justice Abe Fortas wasn't elevated to the Chief Justice position. prgtoken What this Chamber is facing today isn't a question of whether we will abide by the rule. The rule, of course, was when said: During the last term of the outgoing President, when the office is up for election, we are not going to confirm any nominees. This isn't an argument over whether Chuck Schumer was right when Senator Chuck Schumer said: Heck, over the last couple of years of the administration, we are not going to allow a Justice to be confirmed. prgtoken That is not what we are arguing about today. We are arguing about whether a brilliant legal mind, a judge who has proven incredible legal temperament over the last several months since his nomination, a judge who has agreed 97 percent of the time with the majority decisions of the court, should receive an up-or-down vote. prgtoken Have no doubt that this is a historic opportunity for this Chamber to come together to prove that we believe in that 230-year precedent of confirming Supreme Court Justices. This is an opportunity we have to come together on a judge who just 11 years ago was confirmed unanimously by voice vote. There was no opposition 11 years ago to Judge Gorsuch when he was confirmed to be placed on the Tenth Circuit Court, which is based in Denver. Now, the Denver-based court, the Tenth Circuit Court, covers about 20 percent of our Nation's land mass. It is a huge, huge area. This is a court that deals with public lands cases. This is a court that deals with water issues, complex public lands issues, and Tribal issues. This is a judge who has been a part of 2,700 opinions, voting 97 percent of the time with the majority of the court. prgtoken Now, the majority of the court aren't all or George H.W. or Ronald Reagan nominees. The nominees in the Tenth Circuit Court are bipartisan justices. It is filled with ic and appointees. That is the Tenth Circuit Court, with whom Judge Gorsuch has worked. Judge Gorsuch has been somebody known as a feeder judge. A feeder judge is somebody that the Supreme Court--when they are looking to select clerks to help the Justices do their work--looks to, like Judge Gorsuch, to provide them with law clerks to help them at the Supreme Court. They do that because he is an incredible and outstanding jurist, somebody who has the respect on both sides of the aisle, and D
CONGRATULATIONS TO DR. STEPHEN NIMER
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Republican, FL) \u2014 2017-3-29

I rise today to congratulate Dr. Stephen Nimer on his successful 5 years as the director of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at my alma mater, the University of Miami. Go Canes. prgtoken Throughout his distinguished career as a noted leukemia and stem cell transplant researcher and clinician, Dr. Nimer has dedicated himself to caring for cancer patients in their greatest hour of need. Dr. Nimer has propelled the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center into prominence by bringing together a superb team of leading medical experts who have transformed the center into one of the worldwide leaders in cancer treatment and innovation. prgtoken Because of Dr. Nimer's efforts, people from South Florida, and indeed from all over the world, have come to view Sylvester as the ultimate destination for cutting-edge cancer programs, as well as a refuge and helping hand as they deal with this difficult disease. prgtoken Congratulations to Dr. Nimer on a successful 5-year tenure at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center. Our South Florida community is indeed blessed to have you at the helm.
CONGRATULATING HERMITAGE FFA FORESTRY TEAM
Bruce Westerman (Republican, AR) \u2014 2017-3-29

I rise today to recognize and congratulate the outstanding achievements of four young men in my district. The Hermitage, Arkansas, FFA Forestry team not only placed first in Arkansas but also won the 37th annual National 4-H Forestry Invitational and the National FFA Forestry Career Development Event. prgtoken The Hermitage FFA Forestry team was comprised of: Ethan Boykin, Hunter Saunders, Cade Wilkerson, and Connor Wilkerson, all of Hermitage, Arkansas. During the Forestry Invitational, teams competed for overall team and individual awards in events such as tree identification, insect and disease identification, forest evaluation, and a written forestry exam. The National FFA Forestry CDE tests students' skills and knowledge in forest management. prgtoken As a forester serving in the House of Representatives, I recognize the many hours that these young men dedicated to competing on a national level, and I admire them for their hard work. prgtoken Additionally, special recognition is due to Mr. Taylor Gwin, who coached the Arkansas Forestry team, the parents of the team members, and the Bradley County Extension Services. They all played a crucial role in making this victory possible. prgtoken , agriculture and forestry are the main economic engines in Arkansas, and there is little doubt, in my mind, that one day soon, talented and passionate young people, such as these, will be called upon to lead our State into the future. prgtoken Once again, I offer them my most sincere congratulations and wish them the best as they continue to pursue their passion for forestry.
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Rob Portman (Republican, OH) \u2014 2017-3-29

I would like to thank my colleague for his good comments regarding Neil Gorsuch. prgtoken I rise today to strongly support Neil Gorsuch for the U.S. Supreme Court. prgtoken First, there is no question that Judge Gorsuch is qualified for this job. He served as a law clerk for two Supreme Court Justices, Justice Byron White and Justice Anthony Kennedy. He has also had a distinguished career in the public sector and in the private sector. Finally, of course, he worked in the Office of the Attorney General. He worked in the Justice Department, and he had a great reputation there as well. prgtoken Of course, in 2006, not that long ago, he came to the floor of the Senate to be confirmed to the Tenth Circuit. And guess what. He was unanimously confirmed by this body. In fact, at the time, Senator Hillary Clinton voted to confirm him. Senator voted to confirm him. Senator voted to confirm him, and, by the way, so did a number of who are currently serving in the Senate. Not a single Senator objected. Why? Because the guy is so well qualified. prgtoken Since then, in his 10 years on the Tenth Circuit Court, his record has shown that he is fair, he is independent, and he is a consensus builder, which only ratified what the Senate had done. It showed that, in fact, he was the kind of person who represents us well in court. prgtoken By the way, he is also a guy who knows how to find common ground. Listen to these numbers: 97 percent of the cases he has decided were unanimous decisions with the other two judges on the panel. Typically, as you know, these are judges who have been appointed by Presidents who are and . Finally, he has been in dissent less than 2 percent of the time. So this is a guy who 97 percent of the time is unanimous, and 2 percent of the time he is in dissent. Out of the more than 180 opinions he has written as a judge--180 opinions--only one had ever been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court from the circuit court, and, by the way, that one was affirmed. prgtoken So this is a guy who clearly knows how to build a consensus, bring people together, and that is needed right now. It is needed in this body. It is needed in our country as a whole, and it is certainly needed in the judiciary. prgtoken By the way, it doesn't surprise me that he is a consensus builder. If you think about it, he was a law clerk for Justice Byron White and Justice Anthony Kennedy. They are both known famously as being consensus builders and being able to bring together disparate decisions to try to find a decision at the Supreme Court level. So he has seen it up close and personal. He knows how to do it. prgtoken I would say, though, in terms of this debate we are having, it is not just about Neil Gorsuch and it is not just about another seat, as important as it is, on the U.S. Supreme Court. It is also an opportunity, by voting for Neil Gorsuch, to ensure that we hav