mesut/congress_speeches huggingface dataset:
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR (Executive Session)
Jeff Merkley (Democrat, OR) \u2014 2019-3-28

I will, in fact, make this the last time I reserve the right to object, simply to make the point that there are many ideas for improving this Chamber that have not had due consideration. prgtoken My colleague has expressed a lot of frustration over executive nominations. I put forward an amendment in the minority establishing a 100-day clock for amendments to be voted before this floor once the paperwork is complete. Others have other ideas, including the ability to have a time at the start of every 2 years to be able to have an open debate on amendments--on how we work. Others have other ideas for improving this Chamber. prgtoken I think such a debate is way overdue, but if it is the majority leader's intent to allow just the one issue that he is bringing forward, then that is not turning the clock back to historical norm. prgtoken I was here in this Chamber in 1976 and during the eighties, seeing this body debate issues. I would ask, if my colleague brings this to the floor as he is planning to do, that he open it up for amendments. Get a time agreement. I will certainly encourage my side to agree to such a thing. prgtoken I take your point about it not just being a delay. I think there are serious possibilities for improving how we work that should be debated. I hope my colleague will open the floor for amendments. prgtoken I withdraw my objection.
OPPOSING BAN ON TRANSGENDER MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES
Jerrold Nadler (Democrat, NY) \u2014 2019-3-28

I thank the gentleman for yielding. prgtoken , I rise in strong support of this resolution and in opposition to the administration's ban on openly transgender individuals in the armed services. prgtoken Throughout history, each time we expand who may join the armed services to better reflect the diversity of our Nation, the same tired and disproven arguments are brought back: that any individual within a new group, regardless of their ability, is unfit to serve and that they will disrupt unit cohesion. We heard these arguments with respect to Black and Latino men; women; and gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. prgtoken But we know that is simply untrue. There are no issues with transgender individuals serving in our military. You don't have to take my word for it. The service chiefs of all five branches of our military have testified that there have been zero instances of transgender servicemembers hurting cohesion or readiness since the ban was first lifted. prgtoken The conservative obsession with targeting and attacking transgender individuals in all areas of American life is cruel and immoral. It is astonishing that, after years of ``support our troops'' demagoguery from my colleagues across the aisle, they would choose to turn their backs on Active-Duty servicemembers and vote to specifically deny them medically prescribed care. prgtoken After 2\1/2\ years of transgender servicemembers serving with no issues, there is one reason and one reason alone for this administration to be bringing back a ban on transgender servicemembers: to force a bigoted agenda on the military that they cannot force on the rest of the American people. prgtoken , much of the history of this country is the history of expanding our understanding of whom the Declaration of Independence meant when it said that all men are created equal. It didn't mean, in 1776, Black men; it certainly didn't mean women; it didn't mean Native Americans; and it didn't mean LGBTQ people. We have come to the point where we understand, at least aspirationally, it means all of those things. prgtoken This resolution gives us a choice: prgtoken Do we join the march? Do we continue the march to expand the meaning of the Declaration of Independence to declare equality for everyone regardless of specific characteristics, or do we join that dreary procession of slavers, confederates, racists, and misogynists who have dragged this country through the mud and have besmirched the ideals of the Declaration of Independence? prgtoken That is our choice today. Let's take the right one.
OPPOSING BAN ON TRANSGENDER MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES
Adam Smith (Democrat, WA) \u2014 2019-3-28

the balance of my time. prgtoken Let's remember one important point. There was no problem. This was not an issue. It was not talked about until the President decided that, in his words, he wanted to ban transgender people from serving in the military. prgtoken I hope that is not engaging in personalities. It is simply saying what he said and did. He sent out a tweet saying we should ban people who are transgender. Then the military has had to backfill that tweet with a policy. I feel bad for the members of the military who have had to do that, who have had to waste their time for the last year trying to accommodate the ignorance and bigotry of this presidential policy. prgtoken There was no problem. Every single service chief testified there is no impact on unit cohesion. We weren't talking about that until the President decided that he wanted to discriminate against transgender people. prgtoken I think the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee is 100 percent correct. Every eligible person who can perform the duties should be allowed to serve. prgtoken This policy violates that principle in a whole bunch of different ways, but I will simply mention two. prgtoken Even if you have already transitioned, even if you have already gone through all of the healthcare needs and have fully transitioned to a new gender, this policy says you will not be allowed to serve if you are transgender. prgtoken That means that fully qualified people--not ones who have potential future surgery or anything--are being banned from serving. prgtoken It also says, if you are serving now, you cannot be who you are. And this is where the ignorance comes in. prgtoken Wow. What do you mean? prgtoken You have got to be the gender you were born in. prgtoken That is not the way it works. That is ignorance talking. This policy saying that, No, sorry, you have to be in your ``biological sex'' means you have to deny who you are. And that will also ban people from serving who are otherwise 100 percent qualified. prgtoken Without question, trans men and women who are fully qualified to serve in the military will be banned by this policy. prgtoken We have already seen the other two arguments: Well, the healthcare costs will go up. prgtoken No, they won't. The stats, the evidence, the facts show that transgender people have no greater healthcare costs than the average person serving in the military. prgtoken And the unit cohesion argument is an absolute joke. This debate, this policy, prompted by the President, inserting discrimination where it did not belong, is the only thing that has caused any of this issue. prgtoken As General Milley said: zero evidence of any unit cohesion issue. prgtoken So, let's be 100 percent clear here. This policy is based on ignorance and bigotry. prgtoken And why are we doing it on the House floor instead of down in some press conference somewhere? Because the vote of this House matters more than just the indiv
OPPOSING BAN ON TRANSGENDER MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES
Gilbert Ray Cisneros, Jr. (Democrat, CA) \u2014 2019-3-28

I want to thank Mr. Kennedy for his leadership on this issue and the members and staff on the House Armed Services Committee for helping bring this important resolution to the House floor. prgtoken I served in the Navy during the time of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Too many were forced to live their lives in secret, unable to be true to themselves. In 2016, transgender servicemembers were allowed to serve openly in the United States military, individuals like Lieutenant Commander Blake Dremann, who is still currently on Active Duty and who has deployed 11 times. prgtoken During his testimony in the Military Personnel Subcommittee, he stated that his transition meant that he was no longer compartmentalizing parts of his life. He also stated that his decision to transition made him a better officer and a better leader. He has proven it by receiving the Navy Batchelder Award, which is given to Navy top Supply Corps officers. prgtoken My support for Lieutenant Commander Dremann and all our transgender servicemembers is unequivocal. They have shown tremendous courage, and it is why I fight for inclusion and equality for the LGBTQ community. prgtoken The President's policy is taking not only our military, but our country, backwards. It is unnecessary, and it is purely a discriminatory action against a group of individuals who want to do nothing more than serve their country. prgtoken It is a disgusting attack on a community that he once swore to protect. He is attacking servicemembers who have already proven their ability to meet strategic needs and who pose no risk to unit cohesion or military readiness. prgtoken As far as I am concerned, any person who has the courage, spirit, and commitment to serve our country in uniform when so many choose not to should be allowed to do so. prgtoken I will vote to pass this resolution, and unlike the President, I will continue to advocate for and protect our LGBTQ community. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in support of this resolution and denounce the President's hateful policy toward our servicemembers.
CELEBRATING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL INSTITUTE FOR THE DEAF
Joseph D. Morelle (Democrat, NY) \u2014 2019-3-28

. Madam , I rise today to congratulate the National Technical Institute for the Deaf on celebrating 50 years of providing an outstanding education for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. The National Technical Institute for the Deaf, or NTID, is one of the nine colleges at Rochester Institute of Technology in Rochester, New York. With almost 9,000 alumni and a 94 percent average employment rate over the past five years for its deaf and hard-of-hearing graduates, NTID continues to open doors and break down barriers for people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. prgtoken For decades, the deaf community advocated for a technical university, and in 1965, that dream became a reality. After legislation was introduced in April that year, the National Technical Institute of the Deaf was established by Congress via Public Law 89-36 and signed by President Lyndon Baines Johnson on June 8, 1965. Three years later, in September 1968, 70 deaf young men and women arrived at the Rochester Institute of Technology, or RIT, campus to become the charter class of NTID students. prgtoken And here we are, 50 years after that charter class was facing the completion of its first year of academic instruction, and NTID is still excelling at its primary mission. ``. . . to provide deaf and hard-of- hearing students with outstanding state-of-the-art technical and professional education programs, complemented by a strong arts and sciences curriculum, to prepare them to live and work in the mainstream of a rapidly changing global community and enhance their lifelong learning.'' prgtoken We know NTID has succeeded because NTID students persist and graduate at rates favorable to national rates for two- and four-year colleges and because they are, on average, employed at higher rates and earn more over their lifetimes than deaf peers who do not attend NTID. prgtoken Over the past 50 years, NTID has also surpassed expectations for its secondary mission, by establishing one of the country's oldest and most prestigious American Sign Language interpreter training programs, improving the education of deaf children and youth by preparing future educators, and conducting research and outreach that benefit deaf people worldwide. prgtoken Serving as the U.S. Representative for Monroe County is a source of great pride for me, a pride that comes from knowing the role that Rochester has played and continues to play in changing the world for the better. NTID has helped make Rochester the diverse, innovative and determined community it is today. We are so fortunate to have this national treasure as part of RIT and part of Rochester. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating NTID on 50 years of excellence
OPPOSING BAN ON TRANSGENDER MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES
Tim Ryan (Democrat, OH) \u2014 2019-3-28

due to unforeseen circumstances on Thursday, March 28, 2019, I was not present to cast my vote on the question of Agreeing to H. Res. 124, a resolution expressing opposition to banning service in the Armed Forces by openly transgender individuals. I agree in the strongest terms with the resolution's denunciation of the ban, and had I been present my vote would have been yea on rollcall 135.
OPPOSING BAN ON TRANSGENDER MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES
Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, CA) \u2014 2019-3-28

I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding time and, really, for his leadership on this very important issue as to who we are as a nation, how we honor our oath to protect and defend the American people, and, in doing so, recognizing the contribution of all who want prgtoken to serve our country. I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) for his leadership. prgtoken I also acknowledge the leadership of our colleague Joe Kennedy, sponsor of this legislation, for his relentless leadership and his forming and chairmanship of the Transgender Caucus that has been so important in making clear, in our policy, that we respect the dignity and worth of every person. prgtoken , the men and women who step forward to serve in the U.S. military are patriots, all of them, people of great strength and courage whose sacrifice keeps us safe. We owe those heroes our must humbled gratitude and our most steadfast support, and I want to thank our trans friends for their service, their courage, their patriotism in serving our country. prgtoken Instead of honoring their service, the President continues to insist on his cruel transgender servicemember ban. This is an act of cruelty. prgtoken Let us all salute, again, Congressman Joe Kennedy, a champion for equality, fairness, and dignity in this Congress, for his firm, moral leadership on this resolution to oppose the President's bigoted ban. prgtoken The resolution that our distinguished chairman, Mr. Smith, and our colleague, Joe Kennedy, are putting forth is bipartisan because protecting transgender servicemembers is a matter of patriotism and it transcends politics. prgtoken The President's ban, as I said, is cruel and arbitrary, a decision designed to humiliate the transgender Americans who are risking and giving their lives for the United States of America. prgtoken There is no moral justification for this ban, which violates every value of our American democracy and betrays our fundamental belief in fairness, dignity, and respect. prgtoken There is no medical justification for this ban, which the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Psychiatric Association all oppose. prgtoken And there is no military justification for this ban which would undermine our military readiness and make America less strong and safe, and that is according to our own military. prgtoken After the President first unleashed his ban, 56 retired generals and flag officers issued a statement asserting that the ban ``would cause significant disruptions, deprive the military of mission-critical talent, and compromise the integrity of transgender troops who would be forced to live a lie, as well as non-transgender peers who are forced to choose between reporting their comrades or disobeying policy. As a result,'' they go on to say, ``the proposed ban would degrade readiness even more than the failed Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.'' prgtoken Other militar
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019
Richard J. Durbin (Democrat, IL) \u2014 2019-3-28

if you had to pick a country--anywhere in the world--where you faced a serious illness, you are likely to pick the United States. Here we have some of the greatest hospitals, doctors, and some of the greatest research institutions in the world. In some other countries, they certainly have good medical care, but if you could only pick one, I certainly would pick this country, the United States of America. That is why it is kind of surprising to learn that when it comes to some basic indicators of how well we are doing in the United States compared to other countries, there are some surprising answers. prgtoken We are facing a public health crisis in this country today that is often overlooked and ignored, and it is one I am sure will touch each and every one of us. It is the issue of maternal and infant health. prgtoken Too often in our country, new mothers and their babies--especially women and babies of color--are dying from completely preventable health complications. Take this statistic to heart: The United States is only 1 of 13 countries in the world where the death rate of new mothers is worse today than it was 25 years ago. How can it be possible that in the United States of America, mothers are dying at a rate worse than it was 25 years ago? Nationwide, more than 700 women die every year as a result of pregnancy. More than 70,000 others experience severe, near- fatal complications. In my State of Illinois, 73 women die every year due to pregnancy-related complications, and 70 percent of those deaths are preventable. prgtoken Not only are we losing these new moms, we are losing their babies. Every year, more than 23,000 infants die in the United States largely due to factors that could be prevented. Some of them are birth defects which could be detected in utero, preterm birth, low birth rate, and maternal complications. Here is a startling statistic. The United States of America--our home; this great Nation of plenty--ranks 32 out of 35 wealthy Nations when it comes to infant mortality. Is it possible? If so, what are we going to do about it? prgtoken The tragedy of maternal and infant mortality is even more pronounced when you look at mothers of babies of color. Black infants in America are twice as likely to die as White infants. That racial disparity is greater today than it was in the year 1850. Nationwide, women of color are three to four times more likely than White women to die as a result of their pregnancy. In Illinois, African-American women are six times more likely than White women to die of pregnancy-related complications. prgtoken Something has to be done. That is why, this week, I joined with Congresswoman Robin Kelly, Senator Duckworth, and others introducing what we call the MOMMA's Act. First and foremost, our bill would expand the length of time a new mom can keep her Medicaid healthcare coverage. More than half of the babies born my State of Illinois are to mothers
OPPOSING BAN ON TRANSGENDER MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES
Jackie Speier (Democrat, CA) \u2014 2019-3-28

I rise today to support this resolution with vigor. prgtoken Last month, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel within the Armed Services Committee held a hearing. It was the first time in the history of this Congress that five transgender members of the military were allowed to testify. prgtoken Four of them are trans female. One of them is trans male. All five of them have served our country with distinction. All five of them have served more than 12 years in the military. One of them is a West Point graduate. All of them have served either in Iraq, Afghanistan, multiple deployments, and in submarine service. prgtoken To the servicemember, all I saw was pride to be in the military, pride to serve their country, pride to put themselves on the line. prgtoken The testimony from the administration was like a twisted pretzel. They offered a weak and dithering defense of their cruel policy. Two things became clear at this hearing: prgtoken First, the administration policy is a ban. Make no mistake about it. Those who are in the military and serving as transgender can continue to do so. No one can come into the military who is transgender. If you are in the military and transgender and have not identified, you cannot identify. So it is a ban. prgtoken Captain Alivia Stehlik put it best: Currently, soldiers are allowed to seek care no matter what, trans related or not. If the policy changes, soldiers will no longer be able to seek care, because if you say, I am trans and get a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, regardless of your job performance, you are ineligible and will be terminated. prgtoken The policy is a solution in search of a problem. Worse, it discriminates against our servicemembers. prgtoken Second, the hearing demonstrated resoundingly that the last 2\1/2\ years of open service have been unequivocally successful. prgtoken , let me say, transgender servicemembers have been there for us. It is time for us to be there for them.
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019
Charles E. Schumer (Democrat, NY) \u2014 2019-3-28

on Monday the administration doubled down on their assault on American healthcare by supporting an effort to completely eliminate the healthcare law through the courts. People scratched their heads, saying: Are they really doing this after trying for 2 years unsuccessfully and after losing the election? prgtoken Yes, they are. The action is no small matter. The administration's radical support for the wholesale elimination of the healthcare law would send our healthcare system into certain chaos. If the administration has its way, it would send premiums soaring for millions of Americans. It would revoke coverage for tens of millions more who gained coverage through medical expansions. It would strike protections for an estimated 133 million adults in America who have preexisting medical conditions, even people who get coverage from their employer. prgtoken Let me say that again. There are 133 million Americans who have preexisting medical conditions. If the administration has its way, the insurance company could just tell those 133 million and their families: We cut you off. We don't want to pay for your insurance anymore because it is too expensive. Your daughter has cancer. Your wife has severe diabetes. prgtoken It is a disgrace. Let's not forget that the system would impose billions of dollars in new prescription drug costs on seniors in Medicare. The consequences are dire. That is why we are introducing an amendment to ensure that not a dime of the American people's money goes to the administration's fight to destroy the entire healthcare system. Not one cent of the Department of Justice should be used to hurt Americans like this. prgtoken campaigned on ``End Care.'' Then, the Party--and even we thought himself--saw they had no replacement. This repeal and replace had no replacement. They couldn't come up with one. prgtoken What is the Party now standing for? Here it is. ``The Party will become the party of healthcare,'' says . Absolutely not. Here is what his tweet should say if he is being honest and telling the truth to the American people: The Party will become the party that ended your healthcare. prgtoken You cannot have a situation in the administration where President says one thing and their Attorney General goes to court to do the opposite. You cannot or should not have a situation where Senators get up and say we need to expand healthcare for people, and then they say not a peep when their own President tries to strip it away from them. prgtoken President says the Party wants to be the party of healthcare. Well, I say, God help the middle class if s are the party of healthcare. What, dare I ask, is their plan? Let me ask Leader McConnell and every Senator, and I hope their constituents will ask them, too, beca