mesut/congress_speeches huggingface dataset:
CONDEMNING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S LEGAL CAMPAIGN TO TAKE AWAY AMERICANS' HEALTH CARE
Sheila Jackson Lee (Democrat, TX) \u2014 2019-4-2

I rise in strong and unequivocal support for H. Res. 271 as well as the underlying resolution and ask all Members to join me in supporting this resolution which condemns the Administration's ongoing legal campaign to take away health care from more than 100 million Americans and to make health care dramatically less affordable for those fortunate enough to be insured. prgtoken I thank Congressman Allred, my Texas congressional delegation colleague, for introducing this important resolution. prgtoken As a new member of Congress who unseated an opponent who voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act dozens of times, the gentlemen from Texas knows first-hand how important and critical access to affordable, high quality, accessible health care available to everyone, including those with pre-existing conditions, to the well-being of American families. prgtoken Because of the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the national uninsured rate has been slashed from 14.8 in 2012 to 8.8 percent in 2018. prgtoken Texas has long led the nation in rate of uninsured so the comparable rates are 24.6 and 15 percent, respectively. prgtoken , I distinctly recall a candidate for the highest public office in the land saying ``care is a disaster'' and appealing for voters to support him with this question: ``What have you got to lose?'' prgtoken The question deserves a response so I hope that person, who occupies the Oval Office, is listening to my answer. prgtoken The Affordable Care Act, or ``care,'' has been an unmitigated success to the more than 20 million Americans who for the first time now have the security and peace of mind that comes with affordable, accessible, high quality health care. prgtoken , Tip O'Neill used to say that ``all politics is local'' so let me share with you how care has dramatically changed lives for the better for the people in my home state of Texas. prgtoken 1.874 million Texans who have gained coverage since the ACA was implemented could lose their coverage if the ACA is entirely or partially repealed or invalidated. prgtoken 1.1 million Texans who purchased high quality Marketplace coverage now stand to lose their coverage if Texas v. United States, No. 4:18- cv-00167-O (N.D. Tex.), the lawsuit brought by Governors, and now whole-heartedly supported and aided by the Administration were to succeed. prgtoken 913,177 individuals Texans who received financial assistance to purchase Marketplace coverage in 2016, averaging $271 per individual, are at risk of having coverage become unaffordable if the Congress eliminates the premium tax credits. prgtoken 1.1 million Texans could have insurance if all states adopted the ACA's Medicaid expansion; these individuals will not be able to gain coverage if the Congress eliminates the Medicaid expansion. prgtoken 508,000 kids in Texas who have gained coverage since the ACA was implemented are also at risk of havin
IMPROVING PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF NOMINATIONS IN THE SENATE--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued
Catherine Cortez Masto (Democrat, NV) \u2014 2019-4-2

I rise today, along with my colleagues, to bring attention to an issue that I think is important for all of us women. Today, we are 4 months--92 days, to be exact--into the new year. Today is the day that American women catch up in earnings to what their male counterparts made last year. In 2019--almost 100 years after women won the right to vote and 56 years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act--it still takes women 15 months to earn what a man makes in 12. That is the significance of today, Equal Pay Day. prgtoken Women make up half of the U.S. workforce. We are small business owners, entrepreneurs, doctors, lawyers, and community leaders. Yet women in the United States still make an average of 80 cents for every dollar earned by a man. For women of color, women with disabilities, and transgender women, the gap is even more jarring. Black women earn an average of 61 cents on the dollar, Native American women earn 57 cents, and Latinas earn 53 cents for every dollar the average White man makes. This means that Latinas, who face the highest pay gap in the country, must keep working until November 20 this year in order to earn what their White male colleagues made in 2018. Women with disabilities are paid an average of 83 cents for every dollar a man with a similar disability makes at a full-time job, and transgender women can expect their average yearly earnings to fall by almost one-third after their transitions. In 2019, this is still the reality for American women. These women are often the sole breadwinners for their families. prgtoken This type of systemic discrimination has no place in our country. It is having a negative economic impact on families. As long as the wage gap exists, women face unfair barriers to success and have to fight hard for economic security for themselves and their families. prgtoken Full-time working mothers trying to provide for their families are paid, on average, $16,000 less per year than fathers. That threatens their ability to put food on the table or save for their children's education. Older women are likely to have to work longer--by an average of 10 years--than their male counterparts to make up their lifetime wage gaps and earn enough for a secure retirement. Young women just entering the workforce can expect to see their wage gap grow, not shrink, over the course of their careers. prgtoken All of these factors hurt Nevada women, Nevada families, and our country. It undercuts American women's ability to get ahead, provide for their families, and save for retirement. In Nevada alone, women who are employed full time lose a combined total of nearly $5 billion each year due to the wage gap. prgtoken It is past time American women earn equal pay for equal work. Women in our country will no longer accept being held back. As a Nevada Latina, it is my responsibility to use my seat at the table to ensure that future generations of women are able to have the
ARMY SPECIALIST THOMAS J. WILWERTH POST OFFICE BUILDING
Gerald E. Connolly (Democrat, VA) \u2014 2019-4-2

as Mr. Zeldin indicated, there is nothing we can do, not this action, that can really make up for the loss of a loved one, even in the time of war. But we can, as a grateful Nation, explain our appreciation and gratitude for the ultimate sacrifice that was made, and that is what we are doing today. prgtoken , I urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation, and .
IMPROVING PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF NOMINATIONS IN THE SENATE--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued
Lamar Alexander (Republican, TN) \u2014 2019-4-2

the distinguished Senator from Washington and I often agree on issues, and for the most part we agree on this. We agree that equal pay for equal work is the right thing to do. What I would add is that equal pay for equal work is already the law. prgtoken Paycheck discrimination on the basis of gender is wrong. It is already illegal in the United States. Congress prohibited discrimination based on gender in the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. prgtoken The Equal Pay Act is very clear: ``No employer . . . shall discriminate . . . between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees . . . less than . . . he pays . . . employees of the opposite sex . . . for equal work . . . which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. . . . '' prgtoken Equal pay for equal work. That already is the law; therefore, it is unnecessary to have yet another law saying basically the same thing. I object.
IMPROVING PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF NOMINATIONS IN THE SENATE--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued
Mike Lee (Republican, UT) \u2014 2019-4-2

this isn't complicated. All we are trying to do here is to say that the United States has and probably should have without interruption an ongoing, special, vitally important trade relationship with the United Kingdom and that the President and the Congress of the United States should work toward an agreement to that end. prgtoken That isn't rocket science. It is not complicated. It is not even in itself a framework for a specific statute or for a specific trade bill. It is laying out a very broad principle--one that I would hope every one of us would accept and would embrace. prgtoken We have to remember that one of the reasons we are a country, one of the reasons we don't fly the Union Jack or sing ``God Save the Queen,'' one of the reasons we declared independence nearly two and a half centuries ago has a lot to do with the fact that, as Americans, we understand that what we need access to is not so much proximity to government, proximity to the Crown, as proximity to other people. It is how human thriving occurs. It is how the human condition is able to be elevated. It is a free market system that has elevated more people out of poverty than any government program ever has, ever could, or ever will. prgtoken Yes, what we need is access to markets. That is part of what prompted the American Revolution, the fact that our merchants, our manufacturers, and our farmers were being excluded from markets and were being discriminated against by the Crown. We understood that would necessarily limit economic mobility within the country and was artificially holding us back. That is why we became our own country. That has a lot to do with why we declared independence. prgtoken Over time, we have benefited substantially from free markets, from free trade. We have seen the greatest economy--in fact, the greatest civilization the world has ever known--in the United States of America. That occurred not because of a government; it is not a result of who we are; it is a consequence of what we do, the decisions we have made. A lot of those decisions have been based on free markets. prgtoken With respect to my distinguished colleague, my friend, the Senator from Oregon--with respect to his suggestion that this is somehow weighing in on the merits of a political cause that he might not like in another country, that is really not our business, and this resolution is completely agnostic on that point. This resolution doesn't require us to hold hands with Great Britain. This resolution doesn't require us to say that the United Kingdom can do no wrong. This is not a bill calling for us to make America Great Britain again. No. This is here only to protect and promote free trade because free trade makes us free. Free trade makes us prosperous. We should not walk prgtoken away from one of the greatest trade partnerships we have on this planet. prgtoken Thank you. Unanimous Consent Agreement
IMPROVING PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF NOMINATIONS IN THE SENATE--MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed
Chuck Grassley (Republican, IA) \u2014 2019-4-2

over the past 2 years, some in this body have decided that they will oppose any nominee suggested by President . There isn't a Senator who serves their State's interest when qualified, noncontroversial nominees are prevented from being confirmed; however, some Members continue to do just that by slow- walking the President's nominees for partisan purposes. prgtoken This concern about the speed of confirming nominees is not anything new. For the benefit of those who were not here at the time, I would like to take this opportunity to review some of the history on this subject and how we got where we are today with all this stalling. prgtoken Since the rejection of the Robert Bork nomination for the Supreme Court in 1987, s have felt like we are living under two sets of rules. Supreme Court nominees could be rejected by on ideological grounds if they didn't pass their litmus test, but s continued to vote to confirm otherwise qualified nominees who had what we might consider very radical views about interpreting the Constitution to mean things that the Constitution plainly does not say. prgtoken Then all of a sudden in 2003, to contrast with what the practice had been from 1789, entered the Senate as a minority party under a President. Prior to 2003, there was simply no history of systematically opposing cloture to prevent judicial nominees from ever getting a final vote. prgtoken However, coaxed on by leftwing activists, Senate embarked in 2003 on an unprecedented campaign of obstruction by filibustering several of President 's judicial nominees to keep them from being confirmed. prgtoken When Senate began to use the cloture rule to block 's circuit court nominees, we made it very clear that we s were done living by two sets of rules. We warned that, if they continued down that path, we would prgtoken follow their precedent when the tables were turned, but the obstruction continued anyway. prgtoken Not long after--and as they often so do in this Chamber--the tables were turned. President entered office with a majority in the Senate. True to promises to not live by two sets of rules, we began to follow the precedent established by the and blocked a proportional number of President 's judicial nominees. prgtoken Despite the fact that s were holding to the same standard that the established, Senate made a big show of being outraged at that time and being indignant about this equal treatment. Senate began threatening to invoke the nuclear option to ram through President 's nominees on a simple majority vote. prgtoken However, the minority and majority parties reached an agreement--yes, we actually reached an agreement--and this was at the beginning of the 113th Congress w
RECESS
Tom Cotton (Republican, AR) \u2014 2019-4-2

I want to comment briefly on the proposed constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college that my colleagues are introducing this week. It is just the latest radical proposal by the to upend our constitutional system of government. prgtoken Why all the sudden interest in these changes? It is very simple. prgtoken The and their media wing still can't get over that they lost the 2016 election, so they have spent the last 2 years looking for scapegoats. First, it was the collusion hoax, but the Mueller report has put an end to that. Now they blame the Constitution itself and want to eliminate the electoral college, which they claim robbed the so- called popular vote winner of her rightful office. prgtoken Let's be clear about something up front: We have never had a Presidential election with a popular vote winner or loser in the genuine meaning of those words. It is not how we contest the Presidency, and it never has been. Campaigns organize their entire strategies around the electoral college. Guess what. Hillary Clinton did too. She just didn't do it very well. For the losers to complain afterward that they really won is like a football team that gets outscored but says it won the game because it made more first downs or like a basketball team that got outscored but says it won the game because it made more free throws. prgtoken Yet let's suppose that we do change the rules of the game. Let's suppose we get rid of the electoral college. What would we get? prgtoken Get ready for nationwide recounts and election contests. If you thought v. Gore was a circus or that California's ballot harvesting operations were a fraud, wait until you see a nationwide recount. Getting rid of the electoral college would also encourage fringe third parties with all of the instability we see in European parliamentary elections. Neither candidate received 50 percent of the vote in 2016. Imagine an election in which a winner would not even get 40 percent of the vote. How would the respond to that? prgtoken Of course, getting rid of the electoral college could further reduce the role of the States in our elections. The Founders believed, rightfully, that the States were sovereign political communities that had real interests and real views that deserved to have a voice in the national government apart from simple, nationwide majority rule. The Founders didn't want our vast continental Nation to be ruled like colonies from a few coastal capitals. They wanted our one, true national officeholder to understand and account for the diverse ways in which we work and live and think. prgtoken Under the electoral college, which I hasten to add is just like in the Senate, the States can express their will as States. Hawaiians get to speak as Hawaiians about whom the President ought to be. The same goes for Vermonters and Arkansans. Doing away with the electoral college would be especiall
RECOGNIZING WORLD AUTISM AWARENESS DAY AND WORLD AUTISM MONTH
Glenn Thompson (Republican, PA) \u2014 2019-4-2

I rise today, on World Autism Day, to recognize and support all children or adults with autism spectrum disorder. prgtoken In 2018, an estimated 1 in 59 children in the United States was diagnosed with some form of autism spectrum disorder. Notwithstanding these diagnoses, Americans with autism make exceptional contributions across our Nation and around the world. prgtoken Each April Autism Speaks celebrates the start of its signature campaign, Light It Up Blue. Light It Up Blue is a unique global campaign to increase understanding and acceptance for people with autism. prgtoken Today we celebrate World Autism Awareness Day, and this month is World Autism Month. prgtoken , let's renew our commitment to support the entire international autism community, including children and adults with autism, their families, and caregivers. prgtoken Together, we can increase access to information, encourage heightened understanding of autism, promote respect and dignity, and support the services that assist people with autism to reach their full potential.
CONDEMNING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S LEGAL CAMPAIGN TO TAKE AWAY AMERICANS' HEALTH CARE
Kevin McCarthy (Republican, CA) \u2014 2019-4-2

. Madam , I thank Congressman Walden for his sobering words, for his actions. He has a bill that will protect preexisting conditions. The difference about that to today: It is actually a bill; this is a resolution. prgtoken I always thought, when you ran for Congress, you would want to do more than a press release. Apparently, it is different with the new election, Madam . ``Show me your budget, show me your values.'' It has been said so many times on this floor. Those were the words that have been recited by Pelosi quite frequently. You could have a whole ring of videos of her just saying those exact words. prgtoken But, of course, that was before the newly minted ic majority quickly decided they won't be introducing a budget. prgtoken Madam , I wonder if America will question the values. It appears they won't be sharing their values with the American people. But if we had questions as to what those values were, this week removes all doubt. prgtoken Madam , we are celebrating 40 years of C-SPAN, but I wonder if those who are watching today understand what is happening. You see, on this floor, they learned early on, even from a childhood of ``Schoolhouse Rock,'' I'm just a bill on Capitol Hill. prgtoken This is not a bill we are talking about. This isn't even a resolution that goes to the Senate. This will never end up with the President. This will do nothing for your healthcare. What will it do? It will make a great press release. prgtoken The difference, Madam , in one election is what happens on this floor. The difference is: Do you really want to protect people with preexisting conditions? Because, Madam , there is an individual who has a bill that is filed, that has cosponsorship, that is sitting in committee, that the control. They didn't mark it up. They didn't talk about it. They wrote a resolution. prgtoken To those who are watching on C-SPAN, I know what they have watched on this floor before. I know what they watched in the last Congress, that we sat and talked about not a resolution for children's health, for the CHIP program, but we wrote a bill. We extended it longer than anyone has ever dreamed possible, a full decade. prgtoken Yes, Madam , we had to do it with one side of the aisle, because the majority on the other side of the aisle didn't even write a press release supporting it. They voted ``no.'' prgtoken To those who are watching on C-SPAN and questioning what has gone on in this House, yes, they watched it the last Congress. When we had an opioid epidemic, we wrote a bill. We didn't write a press release, and we didn't write a resolution. prgtoken Or when the National Institutes of Health, where you could really care about an individual with healthcare and solve a problem, we didn't write a resolution about giving them more money. We actually voted for it. We actually moved it through committee, and we had a bill and we funded $3 billion more. prgtoken To those who a
IMPROVING PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF NOMINATIONS IN THE SENATE--MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed
James Lankford (Republican, OK) \u2014 2019-4-2

the Senate is in a bad spot. In the first 2 years of President 's Presidency, there were 128 times that the President sent over a nomination and the minority party has said: We want additional time to be able to debate those folks. prgtoken These are individuals who have already gone through vetting at the White House. They have already gone through FBI checks. They have already come to the committee. They have done full vetting at the staff level, then had a full hearing at the Member level, and then had questions for the Record. They passed out of the committee, then had a lapse of time, and then a majority vote was set up to be able to move them. At that time, there was a request for additional time 128 times. prgtoken Just to do a quick comparison of how common that is--because folks say this is normal and this is the way the Senate functions all the time--for President , in his first 2 years, that happened 12 times. For President , that happened a total of 4 times. For President Clinton, that happened a total of 8 times. But for President , it happened a total of 128 times. prgtoken This is a new way of operation for the Senate, and I really should say it is a new way of not operating for the Senate. It is an issue that has to change. It is not just about President . It is about this body, who we are going to be, and how we are going to operate. prgtoken In the past, when there was a nomination from a President, there was the assumption that the President was elected and they could hire their staff. Now the resistance has stepped up and said: The President is elected, but we will not let you hire a staff, and we will not let you put your policies in place because we want to prevent you from getting any people into a spot. prgtoken Guess what. As soon as there is a ic President elected--and at some point in the future, there will be--s will retaliate back to that and say: We will do the same thing. You can't hire your staff. prgtoken This is a new precedent that has been set. If we don't correct it, it is damaging to our Republic. A President should be able to hire their staff. All of the Agencies need Senate-confirmed individuals to be able to actually conduct their business. We need judges to be able to execute across the country. Those are basic things that need to occur. prgtoken I have heard folks say: Well, there has been no problem getting judges through. In fact, s have bragged about the total number of judges coming through. prgtoken Let me give you a comparison. If we stay on the same pace right now with judges--just for the district court judges, which are the most common judges across our country--and President is in office for 8 years, he will have put in 193 judges. President put in 272 judges. It is factually not true that we are able to ram through all of these judges to be able to work through the process. We are no