mesut/congress_speeches huggingface dataset:
2020 ELECTION IRREGULARITIES
Joe Wilson (Republican, SC) \u2014 2020-12-28

. Madam , as a former Election Commissioner, not as a Member of Congress, I am disgusted of the irregularities of the 2020 election. The first duty of a commissioner is fairness and honesty, not facilitating fraud as has sadly so clearly occurred in 2020. The failure to verify signatures, the omission of witnesses, the interruption of counting before completion, the denial of poll watchers for access to fully observe, the extension of ballots received beyond Election Day, registration of illegal aliens, the mailing of mass ballots requested or not, with all irregularities being uncontrovented, this is an open invitation of fraud with financing of hundreds of millions of dollars by elitist tech billionaires to pay for ``get out the vote'' for to maintain tech monopolies. I was grateful to join my colleagues from South Carolina, Jeff Duncan of Laurens, Ralph Norman of Rock Hill, Tom Rice of Myrtle Beach, and William Timmons of Greenville, as ``friends of the court'' along with 121 additional Members of Congress to support the legal challenge to the election irregularities. In addition, Attorney General Alan Wilson of South Carolina courageously joined the suit with 16 additional states, but unfortunately the Supreme Court declined to accept the challenge. An excellent review of the Attorney General's actions was published December 15, 2020, in The Post and Courier of Charleston. Why I Joined the Lawsuit A number of critics have attacked South Carolina's involvement in the election lawsuit that went to the U.S. Supreme Court. Now that the court has decided not to hear the suit, I would like to address the attacks, but first I will explain my position with a simple analogy. Consider an example where two football teams are playing for the national championship, and in the final seconds of the game one team scores the game-winning touchdown. As the winning team celebrates, a camera angle of the touchdown shows that the player who ran the ball into the end zone might have stepped out of bounds before crossing the goal line. The coach of the presumptive losing team challenges the last play by asking the referee for a review. The reason for this challenge is because if it is determined that the player stepped out of bounds before scoring, then the rules were violated and the touchdown is not legitimate. The coach has a duty to exhaust all remedies available to him; otherwise, he is not doing his job. Just like football, elections have rules that must be followed to the letter before a winner can be declared. In this particular case, the rules for federal elections are given to us in the U.S. Constitution, and I interpret those rules to say basically that laws dictating the time, location and manner of elections should be determined b
COMPETITIVE HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM ACT
Susan M. Collins (Republican, ME) \u2014 2020-12-29

I appreciate Senator Daines joining me to clarify the intent of the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2019. This legislation, which Senator Daines has introduced with Senator Leahy, would modify the McCarran-Ferguson Act by eliminating the health insurance industry's exemption from Federal antitrust laws. That sounds like a good idea, but it has implications for longstanding State regulation of the insurance industry. prgtoken States have had the primary responsibility for the regulation of health insurance since the 1940s. Given my past experience as commissioner of Maine's Department of Professional and Financial Regulation, I know firsthand that State insurance regulators do a good job of responding to the needs and concerns of their insurance consumers. To protect consumers, State insurance prgtoken regulators hold probing hearings on rate requests which often lead to lower rates being approved. Most State insurance regulators have consumer protection advocates who resolve disputes between insurers and individual consumers. State regulators do not tolerate unfair or anticompetitive practices. As the National Association of Insurance Commissioners wrote to the leaders of the Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee, ``The potential for bid rigging, price-fixing and market allocation is of great concern to state insurance regulators and we share your view that such practices would be harmful to consumers and should not be tolerated. However, we want to assure you that these activities are not permitted under state law. Indeed, the state insurance regulators in all states actively enforce their antitrust rules and review rates to ensure they are actuarially justified, sufficient for solvency and nondiscriminatory.'' prgtoken Based on this experience, I have consistently raised concerns about legislation that could interfere with the current State-level regulation of insurance and could ultimately harm Maine consumers and smaller insurers. These concerns extend to the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act. prgtoken While the bill does not directly modify the portion of McCarran- Ferguson that affirms State regulatory authority, it, however, does add a layer of Federal review, and we need to ensure that in doing so we do not create increased confusion, cost, and possible conflicts between State and Federal efforts. prgtoken This is why it is very important to make clear Congress's intent that along with the changes specified in the bill, it is Congress's expectation that the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission must notify State bureaus of insurance and attorneys general of any complaints or investigations they have received or are performing that involve entities in their state. I appreciate Senator Daines' willingness to join me today to ensure this intent is clearly stated in the Congressional Record. prgtoken Given the agreement to provide formal clarification of
COMPETITIVE HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM ACT
Steve Daines (Republican, MT) \u2014 2020-12-29

I rise today to speak about my bipartisan legislation, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act, which I introduced with my colleague Senator Patrick Leahy. This is important legislation that will protect consumers from anticompetitive practices by repealing the outdated antitrust exemption for the health insurance industry. This bill has wide bipartisan support, as well as a strong history of near-unanimous congressional consensus, having passed the House of Representatives three times, most recently this September. prgtoken In 1944, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters that the business of insurance was a form of interstate commerce. This meant that the health insurance industry would be subject to Federal antitrust laws under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The insurance industry began raising uncertainties about whether this meant that States would no longer have authority to regulate insurance. When Congress acted to reaffirm this State authority, in the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the insurance industry managed to add a last-minute special-interest loophole that exempted the business of insurance from Federal antitrust laws. prgtoken It has become clear that this antiquated exemption has effectively given insurance companies the power to collude to drive up prices, restrict competition, and deny consumers choice. The large health insurance companies of today have taken advantage of this exemption to abuse the market and artificially inflate healthcare costs. As a result, consumers are paying higher prices to get basic healthcare services, which couldn't be a worse outcome in the middle of a major pandemic. prgtoken I recognize concerns have been raised about whether this legislation might impair or create uncertainty regarding the authority of State insurance regulators. I appreciate hearing from all stakeholders and wish to put those concerns to rest by making clear the intent and scope of the bill. This legislation merely amends a peripheral provision of the McCarran-Ferguson Act containing an antiquated exemption from Federal antitrust laws as it applies to health insurance companies. It does not in any way interfere with, supersede, or abrogate the authority provided and guaranteed by the McCarran-Ferguson Act to State insurance regulators to regulate the health insurance industry. prgtoken This legislation would ensure that health insurance companies would be subject to Federal antitrust laws in the same way as the rest of the American economy, including other regulated sectors. Most importantly, as this bill does not disturb any of the authority provided to State insurance regulators under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, it does not empower Federal authorities to interfere with, supersede, or prevent states from regulating the health insurance industry however they see fit. prgtoken Simply put, this legislation would give the Department of Justic
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
James M. Inhofe (Republican, OK) \u2014 2020-12-29

I was disappointed last week when President vetoed the NDAA. prgtoken This will be the 60th year that we have had the NDAA. The NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act, and I have said so many times, countless times--on the floor of the House and on the floor of the Senate--that this is the most important bill that we have. Some people don't agree with that, but I do. prgtoken That is what we are supposed to be doing here. We are supposed to be defending America. And there is a lot to do. We are in the most threatening situation that we have ever been in. prgtoken I sometimes look back and think of the good old days of the Cold War when you had two superpowers out there. We knew what they had; they knew what we had. Mutual assurance of destruction meant something at that time. If you kill us, we kill you, and everyone is happy. prgtoken But that is living in the past. But anymore now, with the weaponry that is out there, you can get one outside group that doesn't have any resources at all, and they have the ability to wipe out another country. So it is a real threat that we are up against. prgtoken I do chair the committee called the Senate Armed Services Committee, and, of course, I have been very active in the National Defense Authorization Act every year since--well, since 1987. It is a long time. prgtoken So I am proud of the conference report that we had. The NDAA right here--our vote in this Senate was 84 to 13. Wow. You can't find that kind of togetherness in a cause anywhere else. But it puts members of the families of the military first. prgtoken I share President 's frustration about section 230. I know that it is a complicated thing. The majority of people in America don't know what that is all about, but section 230 is something that has nothing to do with the military--nothing at all. prgtoken The committee that I chair is the Armed Services Committee. That would be found in the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee is chaired by Senator Lindsey Graham. He does a great job of chairing that. That is where any kind of reform in section 230 should come from. prgtoken I agree that the President should have the authority to determine troop levels. That is what we have in this bill. We have the President making those decisions. That is why we made sure that the final NDAA gave the President very broad authority in determining troop levels all around, and we have looked at them in Western Europe and Eastern Europe. We have looked at them in Ethiopia--in Afghanistan and other places around the world. prgtoken So we look at what we have done, and I was going to mention--I have been down here several times talking about the President and what he has done and the great job that he has done for the United States. And I am going to wind up with some comments on a card that I put together. I put this card together back 2 years ago, talking about the top
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Mitch McConnell (Republican, KY) \u2014 2020-12-29

Congress has returned to work this week to enact the 60th annual National Defense Authorization Act into law. Yesterday, a bipartisan supermajority in the House voted to reapprove the conference report of this must-pass legislation. Today, the Senate will set up a final vote for tomorrow, Wednesday, for this Chamber to follow suit. Soon, this important legislation will be passed into law. prgtoken President has rightly noted this year's Defense bill does not contain every provision we s would have wanted. I am confident our colleagues feel the same way, but that is the case every year. prgtoken Yet for 59 consecutive years and counting, Washington has put our differences aside, found common ground, and passed the annual Defense bill. Not once in six decades has a Congress let its differences prevent it from completing this work for our national security and our men and women who wear the uniform. prgtoken This year's NDAA will continue our momentum in rebuilding and modernizing our Armed Forces. It will authorize the personnel, equipment, tools, and training we need to reinforce the national defense strategy and to deter great-power rivals like China and Russia. It will cement our advantage on the seas, on land, in the air, in cyber space, and in space. The bill will help us continue to recruit, retain, and support the men and women who keep us safe. It provides a pay raise for the troops, improvements for military housing, childcare, and more. prgtoken For the brave men and women of the United States and our Armed Forces, failure is simply not an option. So when it is our turn in Congress to have their backs, failure is not an option either. prgtoken I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation one more time when we vote tomorrow. Coronavirus
CORONAVIRUS
John Cornyn (Republican, TX) \u2014 2020-12-29

we didn't expect to be in session this week, but we are. And, of course, as we all know, the theme for this entire year has been ``COVID-19 writ large.'' prgtoken More than 330,000 Americans have died from the novel coronavirus. Tens of millions have lost their jobs, and every community across the country has felt the devastating blow dealt by this pandemic, but, as we know, the threats that existed long before this virus still are with us. Even though most of the world hit pause to battle COVID-19, our adversaries did not, and our brave servicemembers didn't pack their bags and not show up for work when everybody else shut down.
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Charles E. Schumer (Democrat, NY) \u2014 2020-12-29

the Senate is here this week for a rare holiday session to address two major issues: the President's veto of the annual Defense bill and the effort to send $2,000 survival checks to millions and millions of American families, something Senate strongly support. prgtoken The Senate should be in session to address both issues. There are only a few days left in this session. We should not adjourn until the Senate holds a vote on both measures--the NDAA veto override and the House bill to provide $2,000 checks for the American people. prgtoken As we all know, the majority leader controls the schedule on the floor. So Leader McConnell holds the key to unlocking this dilemma. The solution is a simple one: Put both bills up for a simple up-or-down vote and then let the chips fall where they may. I believe both measures will pass, as they should. But Leader McConnell must allow the Senate to vote on both pieces of legislation, the Defense bill and the $2,000 checks, before we go home. We will start the process on overriding the President's veto of the Defense bill tomorrow. prgtoken Today, at the end of my remarks, I will ask the Senate's consent to take up the House-passed bill to provide the American people immediate survival checks of $2,000 a person. prgtoken Throughout this pandemic, working Americans have taken it on the chin. Right now, they are facing their hardest and their darkest days. Tens of millions have lost their jobs. Tens of millions are struggling to put food on the table, to keep a roof over their heads. In the wealthiest Nation on Earth, modern-day breadlines stretch for miles down American highways. prgtoken The fastest way to get money into Americans' pockets is to send some of their tax dollars right back from where they came. And $2,000 stimulus checks could mean the difference between American families having groceries for a few extra weeks or going hungry, the difference between paying the rent or being kicked out of your home that you have lived in for years. It would buy precious time for tens of millions of people as the vaccine thankfully makes its way across the country. Of course, we could have taken up this issue weeks ago. prgtoken In the COVID bill Congress just passed, wanted generous direct payments to the American people. Pelosi and I repeatedly asked our counterparts how much they could support. Their answer: $600. It was a compromise many of us were not happy about. I came to the floor myself with the Senator from Vermont to ask that we double at least the size of those checks. A Senator objected. Six hundred dollars was the most s would support. prgtoken Well, my colleagues and my fellow Americans, $600 is not enough. It is not enough for the mother in Nashville $4,000 behind on the rent whose water was shut off earlier this month; not for the medical receptionist in Macomb $2,100 behind on the
CONFIRMATION OF ERIC J. SOSKIN
Gary C. Peters (Democrat, MI) \u2014 2020-12-29

for over 40 years, inspectors general have acted as independent, nonpartisan watchdogs tasked with preventing and uncovering fraud, waste, and abuse in the Federal Government. Simply put, inspectors general make sure government is doing what it's supposed to do. To accomplish this immense task, inspectors general must be experienced in oversight, trusted by both political parties, and ready to hit the ground running on any audits, investigations, and other reviews of their agencies. prgtoken Unfortunately, the nominee for inspector general that we considered last week does not meet this basic test. prgtoken The Department of Transportation is charged with ensuring that America has the safest, most efficient and modern transportation system in the world, so that Americans are able to travel safely and efficiently by road, rail, or air. The Department has an annual budget of over $87 billion and employs over 55,000 personnel, with a footprint in every State. prgtoken The DOT inspector general must be ready to oversee the full range of these activities, from every dollar that funds our highways to every safety decision issued by DOT regulators. To meet this task, the office employs over 400 personnel, with an annual budget of over $94 million. prgtoken Eric Soskin, the nominee for DOT inspector general, is not qualified to oversee an agency of this size and scope, or to lead the activities of one of the largest Offices of Inspector General in the Federal Government. Mr. Soskin does not have any experience managing large organizations. He has never worked in an Office of Inspector General, and he does not have experience in many of the basic activities of such an office, like audits or inspections. Although he has legal experience, he has not focused on DOT or transportation issues at any point in his career. prgtoken While I appreciate Mr. Soskin's service at the Department of Justice and his enthusiasm for the position, he simply lacks the qualifications to ensure DOT is fulfilling its responsibilities. prgtoken I am most troubled, however, by the increasing politicization of inspectors general by the President and by the majority. prgtoken Since 1981, this body has confirmed over 150 inspectors general; until last week, all but two of these nominees had been confirmed by unanimous consent, a voice vote, or a unanimous vote. The reason for this is simple: To do their jobs, inspectors general must be trusted by each member of Congress and by every American, regardless of political party. prgtoken Until this Congress, when an inspector general has faced significant opposition, the Senate either worked through any concerns or declined to advance the nomination. The majority did not force through partisan or unqualified nominees. That is how we have upheld this institution. That is how we have maintained trust in the independence, qualifications, and integrity of inspectors general. prgtoken This Congress
CORONAVIRUS
Edward J. Markey (Democrat, MA) \u2014 2020-12-29

this is our historic moment. We can see the suffering across our country. We can see how desperate people are. We can see how during this holiday season, the people are looking at the prospect, in the words of Tony Fauci, where the worst may be ahead of us for these families. The worst may yet to have been actually inflicted upon families and our country. Yet the s are refusing to allow for a vote on giving each individual $2,000 in order to make it through the rest of this pandemic. prgtoken Senator Sanders today speaks for the millions of Americans who are suffering through a devastating health crisis, an unemployment crisis, an eviction crisis, a hunger crisis, and a crisis of faith--faith that their leaders in this country will stand up and provide for Americans in their hour of need. prgtoken Meanwhile, we here in Washington must confront a moral crisis: Why can't we keep working families from starving even as we stand ready to approve a massive defense bill? prgtoken That is why I am here with my colleague Bernie Sanders to call for a simple vote to provide $2,000 in direct cash payments to Americans across our country. It is this simple. Just like they did in the House of Representatives, the Senate should have a vote--up or down, yes or no--on providing these increased cash payments to desperate Americans. We can get this done quickly and before the holiday if Leader McConnell will simply agree to do it. They already had this vote in the House, and 44 s voted for it. Give the s in the Senate the same opportunity to vote. We already know that many of them have already said they will vote for the $2,000 if they get a chance to vote. It is this simple. prgtoken We can do this because a simple vote will just say that you want to provide a grand total of $2,000 to Americans who need it to pay the rent, to keep the electricity on, to buy diapers, to pay for lifesaving medication--just to survive this devastating pandemic. There are 44 House s who voted for the $2,000 checks. I believe that the s in this Chamber will do so as well, and President has already made it very clear that he will sign the bill. So we can see where the opposition is. It is with the leadership of the s in the U.S. Senate. prgtoken People across our country are falling ill and falling behind on their bills, and for the families of the hundreds of thousands who have died from coronavirus, the medical and funeral expenses are compounding their grief. They need money in their pockets. prgtoken In Massachusetts, this past Sunday, we hit 100 deaths in a single day--the highest death toll our State has seen in a 24-hour period since the very beginning of this pandemic. In the week before Christmas, 21,000 new people in our State applied for unemployment benefits just as let these protections lapse before millions of Americans lost their benefits,