mesut/congress_speeches huggingface dataset:
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Raúl M. Grijalva (Democrat, AZ) \u2014 2017-2-1

such time as I may consume. prgtoken I would like to read a few lines from letters of opposition to this resolution. The first comes from a coalition of 75 national and local environmental groups who are strongly opposed to this bill. prgtoken They write: ``This long awaited rule provides local communities with information they desperately need about water pollution caused by nearby coal mining operations, and includes several important protections for clean water and the health of communities surrounding coal mining operations. Any attack on the safeguards in the Stream Protection Rule is an attack on clean water and should be opposed.'' prgtoken Wildlife and sportsman groups are also opposed. prgtoken The National Wildlife Federation writes: ``The Stream Protection Rule is an important water quality rule for our nation. It seeks to empower State regulatory authorities to ensure coal mining and reclamation best practices, taking into account their unique regional distinctions and impacts to local communities and wildlife. ``. . . any efforts to undermine the safeguards afforded by the finalized Stream Protection Rule, a rule with years of stakeholder outreach and engagement, would be an attack on clean water and should be opposed.'' prgtoken Travel Unlimited says: ``The rule is a worthy, sensible effort to reduce the huge impacts of mountaintop removal coal mining . . . on our Appalachian streams and rivers.'' prgtoken And it goes on and on. They all go on to point out the specific impact of mountaintop removal mining on fishing and wildlife and sportsmen. ``Mountaintop removal mining practices create a survival risk for brook trout and other wild trout populations, and impede efforts to restore brook trout in already degraded watersheds.'' prgtoken , .
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Thomas R. Carper (Democrat, DE) \u2014 2017-2-1

I rise in opposition to this effort under the Congressional Review Act to block implementation of the stream protection rule. prgtoken CRA offers Congress an important tool, as we know, to consider potentially egregious rules that are promulgated usually at the end of Presidential terms. The stream protection rule, which we are considering this evening, is not one of those. prgtoken I live in a State--Delaware--whose citizens can be adversely affected by the upstream actions of others and border States whose citizens could be compromised by the things we do. prgtoken I take it as a matter of faith that we should treat other people the way we want to be treated. We call that the Golden Rule, and I know that not everyone shares my passion for the Golden Rule, even though it appears not just in my faith, those who happen to be Catholic or Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist--it appears in all faiths, the idea that we ought to treat other people the way we want to be treated. prgtoken I also believe the Federal Government should act to protect citizens from the harm of the actions that other citizens would do to them. This stream protection rule is, I believe, one of those actions. prgtoken I am a native West Virginian. I was born in Beckley, WV, a coal mining town in South Central West Virginia. I understand well the role coal mining has played in supporting families in my native State and communities there for longer than any of us can personally remember. prgtoken I also know that mining operations have had a devastating impact on the lives of those who have endured compromised drinking water and destroyed natural habitat, with a loss of the fish and wildlife that define the fabric of my native State and all other States. prgtoken This rule has been a long time coming, as we have heard this evening. Indeed, we are living with rules governing mining conduct that go back, I believe, as far as 30 years. It is time for an upgrade, and I think the rule before us is a sound, responsible, and carefully developed answer to that need. prgtoken In what is becoming an art form in this country, there are myths-- some call them alternative facts--that are swirling around this rule. As ranking member and the senior on the Environment and Public Works Committee, I want to address a couple of them. prgtoken Some would attack this rule's provisions as redundant and inconsistent with State obligations under the Clean Water Act. I am also a former Governor and am keenly aware of the problems of inefficient governance and avoided at all costs conflicts between State agencies. It wasn't always easy, but we didn't need Federal actions to compound those frictions. I am happy to say that the drafters of this rule heard those concerns, and this rule promotes collaboration and coordination between mining and environmental agencies and clarifies their roles, preserving their authorities under the surface mining
Nomination of Neil Gorsuch (Executive Session)
Elizabeth Warren (Democrat, MA) \u2014 2017-2-1

we are in the second week of the Presidency, and it is pretty clear that something is happening in our country. All across the Nation, Americans in quiet towns and boisterous cities are taking to the streets to fight for American values. They are protesting in the streets and calling their Representatives. They are getting involved in local organizations, and they are organizing around the causes they support. prgtoken We know that American values are threatened when the President issues an order banning immigrants from the country based on their religion. We know that American values are threatened when politicians try to break apart a health care system that has extended medical benefits to millions of Americans, and we know that American values are threatened when a President tries to stack his government with billionaires and insiders who have a history of grinding working people into the dirt. prgtoken Yesterday something happened that is a threat to our American values. President nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court. For years now, I have repeated this warning: America's promise of equal justice under the law is in danger. Over the last three decades, as the prgtoken rich have grown richer and middle-class families have struggled, the scales of justice have also tilted, tilted in favor of the wealthy and the powerful. prgtoken This is not an accident. It is part of a deliberate strategy to turn our courts into one more rigged game for folks at the top, and its effects have been devastating. Recent court decisions have protected giant businesses from accountability, made it harder for people who have been injured or cheated to get a hearing, gutted longstanding laws protecting consumers who have been swindled, and unleashed a flood of secret money into our politics that is rapidly tilting the entire government in favor of the wealthy. prgtoken Billionaires and corporate giants have launched a full-scale attack on fair-minded, mainstream judges. It has happened at every level of our judiciary, but the best example was the unprecedented blockade of Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court. Judge Garland was an obvious consensus nominee and a straight shooter who followed the law. Why block him? The problem was that Judge Garland's career didn't reflect a sufficient willingness to bend the law to suit the needs of the rich and powerful. And for that sin, far-right groups, financed by Big Business interests, spent millions of dollars attacking him, to torpedo his nomination and keep that seat open. prgtoken They did something else that is even more damaging: Far-right groups also drew up a list of ``acceptable'' Supreme Court nominees, people who demonstrated they were sympathetic to the rich and the powerful. Judge Neil Gorsuch made the cut, and his nomination is their reward. prgtoken Judge Gorsuch is intelligent and accomplished. He is polite,
Introductory Statement on S. 253
Benjamin L. Cardin (Democrat, MD) \u2014 2017-2-1

I rise in support of the Medicare Access to Rehabilitation Services Act, which I am introducing today with my colleagues Senators Collins, Casey, and Heller. This important bill repeals the monetary caps that limit Medicare beneficiaries' access to medically necessary outpatient physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology services. prgtoken Limits on outpatient rehabilitation therapy services under Medicare were first imposed in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act. The decision to impose limits on these services was not based on data, quality-of-care concerns, or clinical judgment--its sole purpose was to limit spending in order to balance the Federal budget. Since 1997, Congress has acted 12 times to prevent the implementation of the therapy caps through moratoriums and an exceptions process. While these short-term actions have provided necessary relief to our seniors, a long-term solution is essential to bring permanent relief and much- needed stability for both patients and providers. prgtoken We need a full repeal of the existing caps on physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology services. These annual financial caps limit services often needed after a prgtoken stroke, traumatic brain injury, or spinal cord injury, or to effectively manage conditions such as Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, and arthritis. Arbitrary caps on these vital Medicare outpatient therapy services are simply unacceptable. They also discriminate against the oldest and sickest Medicare beneficiaries, who typically require the most intensive therapy, and disadvantage Medicare beneficiaries who live in regions with higher health care costs. prgtoken In a 2009 report issued by the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, MEDPAC, it was estimated that the therapy cap, if enforced without an exceptions process, could negatively impact 931,000 Medicare beneficiaries. Arbitrarily capping outpatient rehabilitation therapy services would likely cause some beneficiaries to delay necessary care, force others to assume higher out-of-pocket costs, and disrupt the continuum of care for many seniors and individuals with disabilities. prgtoken I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Collins in supporting the Medicare Access to Rehabilitation Services Act to ensure that our seniors have access to the outpatient rehabilitation therapy services that they need. prgtoken , I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
John A. Yarmuth (Democrat, KY) \u2014 2017-2-1

I rise in opposition to this dangerous effort to block the stream protection rule, a commonsense proposal that has the potential to save lives and will improve the health, outcomes, and well-being of families over time throughout coal country. prgtoken This bottle of--I guess you could call it a liquid--wasn't taken from an industrial waste site or from the runoff of a landfill. This came from the drinking well of the Urias family's home in Pike County, Kentucky. prgtoken Despite what it looks like, there is water in there along with chemicals, toxic minerals, and known carcinogens, all present in this family's drinking water because of mountaintop removal. prgtoken The mountaintop removal process begins with beautiful mountains that look just like this. These are Appalachian Mountains near the West Virginia-Kentucky border. prgtoken First, they raze an entire side of the mountain, tearing trees from the ground and burning down any plant growth. From there, they use explosives to blast the tops off the mountains and push rock and dirt out, ultimately filling the surrounding streams and waterways with debris, blast materials, and other dangerous elements and minerals that end up in the drinking water of the Urias family and countless others throughout coal country. prgtoken This is what is left. prgtoken As we have noted during our fight for funding to help the families of Flint, Michigan, dealing with water contamination, this should not happen here in America in the 21st century; yet families in coal country have been dealing with this for 40 years. So you can imagine how many people's health has been jeopardized by this practice. prgtoken The stream protection rule that the House is about to block would serve as one of the only safety measures that would protect these families from poisonous drinking water, higher rates of cancer, lung disease, respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, birth defects, and the countless negative health effects that plague this region. prgtoken If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to block the safeguards of the stream protection rule, they should at least consider supporting my legislation, the Appalachian Communities Health Emergency Act, or ACHE Act. I introduced this bill earlier today with Representative Slaughter to suspend new mountaintop removal permits until the Department of Health and Human Services can conduct a comprehensive Federal study of the health effects of this reckless mining method used in my State of Kentucky and throughout coal country. prgtoken I believe mountaintop removal should be banned, but at a minimum, we should halt all new permits until the safety of the residents in the surrounding communities is assured. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose today's effort to block this potentially lifesaving rule and support the ACHE Act. prgtoken We have failed to protect the families in these communities, and passage of this bill will in
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Carolyn B. Maloney (Democrat, NY) \u2014 2017-2-1

let's also be clear about what the SEC's rules do not do. They do not place any restrictions on who companies can pay money to. It doesn't restrict how much money they can pay or what they can pay for. It doesn't stop corruption; it just simply says you have to report it so that the people in the country--and everyone--knows what is going on. prgtoken In fact, there was bipartisan support for this rule. The amendment to Dodd-Frank that required this rule was known as the Cardin-Lugar amendment because it was cosponsored by Senator Dick Lugar. Senator Lugar was a long-time chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, so he understood the negative impact that these corrupt deals could have on developing countries. prgtoken The only reason--and I repeat, the only reason--to vote for this resolution is to help corrupt governments steal money from their people.
THE IMPACT OF THE REPEAL OF THE ACA
Robin L. Kelly (Democrat, IL) \u2014 2017-2-1

I include in the Record this article concerning the repeal of ACA. [From the Washington Post] prgtoken Repealing the Affordable Care Act Will Kill More Than 43,000 People Annually (By David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler) Now that President is in the Oval Office, thousands of American lives that were previously protected by provisions of the Affordable Care Act are in danger. For more than 30 years, we have studied how death rates are affected by changes in health-care coverage, and we're convinced that an ACA repeal could cause tens of thousands of deaths annually. The story is in the data: The biggest and most definitive study of what happens to death rates when Medicaid coverage is expanded, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that for every 455 people who gained coverage across several states, one life was saved per year. Applying that figure to even a conservative estimate of 20 million losing coverage in the event of an ACA repeal yields an estimate of 43,956 deaths annually. With s' efforts to destroy the ACA now underway, several commentators have expressed something akin to cautious optimism about the effect of a potential repeal. The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler awarded Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) four Pinocchios for claiming that 36,000 people a year will die if the ACA is repealed; Brookings Institution fellow Henry Aaron, meanwhile, predicted that s probably will salvage much of the ACA's gains, and conservative writer Grover Norquist argued that the tax cuts associated with repeal would be a massive boon for the middle class. But such optimism is overblown. The first problem is that s don't have a clear replacement plan. Kessler, for instance, chides Sanders for assuming that repeal would leave many millions uninsured, because Kessler presumes that the s would replace the ACA with reforms that preserve coverage. But while repeal seems highly likely (indeed, it's already underway using a legislative vehicle that requires only 50 Senate votes), replacement (which would require 60 votes) is much less certain. Moreover, even if a replacement plan comes together, it's likely to take a big backward step from the gains made by the ACA, covering fewer people with much skimpier plans. Although Aaron has a rosy view of a likely plan, much of what they--notably House Paul D. Ryan (R- Wis.) and Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), who is 's nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services, which will be in charge of dismantling the ACA--have advocated in place of the ACA would hollow out t
Nomination of Neil Gorsuch (Executive Calendar)
Charles E. Schumer (Democrat, NY) \u2014 2017-2-1

I rise today on a matter of great importance to everyone in this body and everyone in America: the future of the Supreme Court. Last night, the President nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch. We in the Senate have a constitutional duty to examine his record robustly, exhaustively, and comprehensively, and then advise and consent if we see fit. We have a responsibility to reject if we do not. We will insist on a rigorous but fair process. There will be 60 votes for confirmation. Any one Member can require it. Many already have. prgtoken And it is the right thing to do. prgtoken On a subject as important as a Supreme Court nomination, bipartisan support should be a prerequisite; it should be essential. That is what 60 votes does. prgtoken This is nothing new. It was a bar met by each of President 's nominations. In my mind, 60 votes is the appropriate way to go, whether there is a ic President or a President, ic Senate or a Senate. prgtoken Because a 60-vote threshold is essential, those who say that at the end of this process, there are only two possible results--that the Senate will confirm this nominee or the s will use the nuclear option to change the rules of the Senate--are dead wrong. That is a false choice. prgtoken If this nominee cannot meet the same standard that s insisted upon for President 's Supreme Court nominees--60 votes in the Senate--then the problem lies not with the Senate but with the nominee. prgtoken The answer should not be to change the rules of the Senate but to change the nominee to someone who can earn 60 votes. Sixty votes produces a mainstream candidate, and the need for a mainstream, consensus candidate is greater now than ever before because we are in new territory in two ways; first, because the Court, under Chief Justice Roberts, has shown increasing drift to become a more and more pro-business, pro-special interest Court, siding more with corporations and employers and special interests over working and average Americans. This in an environment where starkly unequal concentrations of wealth and ever-increasing corporate power--aided and abetted by the Citizens United decision--has skewed the playing field even more decisively toward special interests and away from the American citizen. A mainstream nominee would help reverse that trend, not exacerbate it; and, second, another important reason we are in a new world here, making a 60-vote margin even more important than it was before--as important as it was before--is this: This administration, at least since its outset, seems to have less respect for the rule of law than any in recent memory and is challenging the Constitution in an unprecedented fashion. So there is a special burden on this nominee to be an independent jurist. prgtoken Let's go over each point. First, we have a special responsibility to judge whether this nominee
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Maria Cantwell (Democrat, WA) \u2014 2017-2-1

I can read others, but these are the people who are concerned about this rule. These are the individuals who want to know whether we are going to do our job and to say that polluters must pay. I believe that if we have the technology and the rules to do that, why would miners object? Why would the mining industry object to having the correct information? prgtoken I will read another letter from a Montana rancher this time. As a long-time rancher of north of Billings, water supply has been a 70-year-old struggle for my ranch. The coal industry has posted a threat to my water supply since the 1970s, and more recently increased mining, spurred by fast- growing markets and the export to Asia, which has sparked water damage across the West. The limited water we are talking about in the West makes it doubly valuable and in need of protection. As the saying goes: ``Whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting.'' So it is absolutely essential that we protect the water we have, and sometimes that means a stronger rule from the Federal Government. Most cattle ranchers in the Bull Mountains where I live rely on a combination of wells and natural springs to water our livestock. And like other nearby operations, my ranch is currently being literally undermined by coal mines using massive and destructive long wall machines that make it difficult for efficient mining because of surface disruptions, impairing coal aquifers, subsiding recharge areas, and they pull surface streams underground. I can think of no industry that degrades water in such a reckless and cavalier way as the coal industry. From acid mine drainage and thousands of mines' buried headwaters across Appalachia, to eating streams on the prairie that are destroying wells and springs in Montana's Bull Mountain. While Montana surface mining laws require reclamation of the area over long mines, reclamation is a slow and uncertain process, and water in the existing mines in Montana has not been reclaimed, according to the bond-released statistics. These proposals for mining are to be included along these rivers and even moving along tributaries, to get it out of the way of coal mining. In Wyoming, Angelo Creek is slowly being eaten by a coal mine. With all of it as a backdrop, I am happy to see the proposal by the Department of the Interior to update this regulation put in place over 30 years ago. So the proposed Stream Protection Rule would safeguard communities from destructive coal mining practices and keep pace with our current science and modern mining practices. These new rules would minimize impacts to surface and groundwater such as springs on my property by requiring companies to avoid mining practices that permanent