mesut/congress_speeches huggingface dataset:
HONORING MARIA FERRARA'S SERVICE AS DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
Angie Craig (Democrat, MN) \u2014 2023-3-28

I rise today to thank and congratulate Maria Ferrara for four years and two plus Congresses as my Director of Operations. prgtoken Maria has been with my office since the early days of my first term starting first as my scheduler and elevating to the absolutely vital role of Director of Operations. For years, Maria has truly kept our office running and functioning at a high capacity. prgtoken She's fielded countless meeting requests, hearings and speaking engagements, helped operationalize our office's remote work policies during the pandemic and constantly sought out ways to improve our processes. And she's got the best advice on D.C. restaurants of anyone I know. prgtoken I've appreciated Maria's advice and counsel in various roles over the years and wish her the best in her new adventure off the Hill. I'll miss her greatly on my team--and wish her best of luck as she continues on in her career.
LOWER ENERGY COSTS ACT
Jill N. Tokuda (Democrat, HI) \u2014 2023-3-28

. Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose H.R. 1, which puts corporations over people. prgtoken Instead of focusing on the needs of the American people and combating the climate crisis, this bill is a shameful giveaway to polluters through loopholes and industry handouts. prgtoken In Hawaii, we view the environment as more than just a resource. It is a sacred responsibility, our kuleana, to ourselves and to future generations. prgtoken From ancient times, Native Hawaiians have sought balance from mauka to makai, the mountains to the sea, understanding the intimate connections we have to our precious, life-giving resources. This is the kind of future we should be striving for, one that promotes community and fosters responsible use of natural resources. prgtoken Everyone deserves to have a seat at the table when it comes to proposed projects that could pollute their water and air, especially underserved communities and communities of color, which have historically borne the brunt of industrialization, resulting in disproportionate impacts to their health and safety. prgtoken This bill does the opposite. In addition to shortening public comment periods, this bill would block lawsuits from anyone who did not participate in the comment period. Communities likely do not even know what projects are permitted, let alone the consequences of those permits, until well after the new proposed comment periods. prgtoken The responsibility should be on developers and projects to win support from communities based on their merits and through meaningful public engagement. Instead, this bill puts the burden on ordinary, hardworking Americans to fight for their basic right to clean air and water. prgtoken I urge my colleagues to do what is pono, what is right, and put our families, our keiki and our kupuna, above corporate profits and vote ``no'' on the polluters over people act.
LOWER ENERGY COSTS ACT
Melanie A. Stansbury (Democrat, NM) \u2014 2023-3-28

I rise today to ensure that the American people and every single New Mexican back home in my home State knows exactly what this bill is all about. prgtoken H.R. 1 is not a bill to cut costs and unlock American energy. H.R. 1 is a blatant giveaway of public lands, public waters, and public minerals to the highest bidder. prgtoken It guts environmental laws, it opens oil and gas leasing to mining and multinational companies, and it will send our communities and our laws back to the 19th century--the 19th century--to 1847 specifically, when we opened the West through the hardrock mining law to minerals claims and multinational corporations, who took advantage of our communities, who dumped tailings piles into our rivers and our streams, and who strip-mined sacred and ancestral lands of our indigenous communities. prgtoken That is right. This bill would take us back before the automobile was invented, before we had electricity, before women had the right to vote in this country, and before New Mexico even became a territory of the United States when our communities, lands, and waters were stripped away from them and given to the highest bidder. prgtoken So let me be clear: This legislation is not about lowering costs. It is not about lessening the burden at the pump. It is not about lowering costs for our families. prgtoken These are just talking points that have been provided by fossil fuel and mining companies and by their allies across the aisle who see the opportunity to strip away environmental regulations and vast amounts of public resources, lands, and waters for private profit. prgtoken In fact, this bill will increase the deficit, robbing our communities of more than a century of hard-fought environmental wins to protect our lands and waters. prgtoken That is why House have a clear message today: Not on our watch. prgtoken Let's be clear and talk exactly about what this bill is and does. My friends, , on the other side of the aisle want to claim that this bill will create jobs, that more drilling and mining will lower costs, and that it is going to somehow magically solve our global critical mineral shortage. prgtoken Let me be clear, as somebody whose parents worked in the energy industry. My father was a welder in the oil and gas fields; my mother, a crane mechanic at a coal-fired power plant. prgtoken As somebody who spent over two decades of my career working on natural resources issues, let me say it loud and clear: We cannot mine and drill our way to solve these problems. prgtoken In fact, this bill not only does not help our communities but puts our Nation and our planet at risk. Scientists from across the world released a report just last week that made clear that if we do not take significant action right now to curb global emissions, we will cross a global tipping point and catastrophic global climate change. prgtoken This bill would threaten our global planetary heal
DON'T ERASE OUR HISTORY
Stacey E. Plaskett (Democrat, VI) \u2014 2023-3-28

this is the close of Virgin Islands History Month. Throughout the Virgin Islands this past month of March, young children have learned about extraordinary Virgin Islanders. prgtoken They have learned about Alexander Hamilton, who comes from the island of St. Croix, and learned about this being the only place in the United States on which Christopher Columbus actually set foot. prgtoken They learn about the inventions and work of Virgin Islanders in our history, but they also learn about the oppression, about the brutality under Danish rule. prgtoken They learn about Alexander Hamilton, his fieriness coming from the fact that he was deemed an illegitimate child and his parentage was constantly questioned. prgtoken Last week, House s passed H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights Act. Under that act, much of that history would be forbidden. Much of that history would be erased. prgtoken That is the American story--of resilience, of oppression, of the constant prgtoken fight for freedom, of the change that we all are coming together as Americans. prgtoken Let's not erase all of our history.
LOWER ENERGY COSTS ACT
Grace F. Napolitano (Democrat, CA) \u2014 2023-3-28

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1, particularly division C, which was introduced in the House as H.R. 1152, and was marked up by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with strong opposition from my ic colleagues. The polluters over the people act let polluters off the hook for harmful actions and damaging impacts to our rivers, lakes, and our streams that our local communities rely on for clean, safe drinking water. prgtoken Division C is an attack on section 401 of the Clean Water Act, which is a key mechanism for States and Tribes to evaluate projects that cross within their borders and have an impact on their waters and environment for decades. prgtoken Section 401 has been a successful example of cooperative federalism, while preserving State authority to manage their natural resources. Section 401 has been a well-supported, effective tool since the beginning of the Clean Water Act, but the administration found a way to make it a scapegoat for the failure of senseless and harmfully polluting mega-projects. prgtoken The provisions in the polluters over people act will tie the hands of States and Tribes seeking to preserve stream flow for their water supplies, to prevent runoff and water pollution, and to minimize impacts to flood-preventing wetlands. It goes against the Clean Water Act's rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution. prgtoken First, in California, this bill would have huge impacts. For one, limiting analysis to only discharges would mean the State would be unable to consider the impact of the whole project, such as increasing impervious surfaces, or considering downstream effects. Our State is trying to preserve every drop of water we can get. Yet, this bill would stop my State from protecting its water supply from the adverse impacts of projects pursued by out-of-State interests. prgtoken Second, this bill places arbitrary, and likely impossible timelines on the States to act on permit requests. Despite how complicated or huge the project might be, this bill will severely limit the time allowed for a State to review its impact. My friends across the aisle may not realize this, but this bill may lead to greater numbers of project rejections as the State is pressured to respond without the time to fully analyze the project. prgtoken This bill is another attempt to gut--really gut--the Clean Water Act and allow pollution and industry to act without repercussion. We must defend human health, our economy, and the natural environment, and oppose the damaging bill that will harm local communities. prgtoken Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the State of California, State of Washington, and the State of New York in strong opposition to H.R. 1152, which is the bill that became division C, H.R. 1. February 28, 2023. Hon. Chairman Graves, Committee on Transportation & Inf
ENERGY AND CLIMATE RIPE FOR BIPARTISAN COOPERATION
Scott H. Peters (Democrat, CA) \u2014 2023-3-28

energy security and climate action are ripe for bipartisan cooperation in this Congress. Unfortunately, H.R. 1 is a partisan grab bag that fails to meet the challenge before us and reverses our climate progress in many cases. prgtoken H.R. 1 would eliminate the methane emissions reduction program, the greenhouse gas reduction fund, and energy efficiency and electrification incentives that reduce energy demand and costs for Americans, all vital components of the Inflation Reduction Act. prgtoken Last week, climate scientists issued their starkest warning yet that the world must cut emissions by 60 percent by 2035 to limit the planet's rise in temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius. We don't have time to waste refighting the battles of last year. prgtoken Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said they don't want a bill that favors one type of energy over the other. The problem is that their bill, H.R. 1, explicitly favors fossil fuels. It ramps up oil and gas leasing and exploration over the clean, affordable fuels and technologies of the future. prgtoken Right now, pipelines that carry fossil fuels are already expedited and given regulatory exemptions, while transmission lines, which transmit electricity long distances from all energy sources, don't get the same preferential treatment. The current system favors fossil fuels, risking our energy and climate security. prgtoken Look, it is not all bad. There are pieces of H.R. 1 that I believe we can work together on--a better process for determining the level of review to apply to a project, reusing existing data instead of reinventing the wheel at each step, and creating presumptive timelines for reviews so that projects are not indefinitely stalled. I am more than willing to admit that NEPA, a law from 1970, can be updated to meet today's challenges. In fact, clean energy permit reform is required to meet our climate goals, but this proposal fails to match the scale of our climate challenge. prgtoken The current power grid took 150 years to build. To get to net-zero emissions by 2050, we have to triple its size in the next 30 years. prgtoken According to Americans for a Clean Energy Grid, North America has built just 7 gigawatts of interregional transmission since 2014, less than half of that in the United States, so let's say 4. South America has built 22, Europe 44, and China 260 gigawatts of interregional transmission. prgtoken We currently have enough wind, solar, and storage projects in the pipeline to power nearly 85 percent of our economy, but 80 percent of those projects could be canceled due to insufficient transmission. prgtoken This decade, we will need to deploy solar and wind at five to six times our historical record pace. We need to be laser-focused on making it easier, not harder, to build clean energy because all the money in the world can't solve the climate crisis if we leave it in the bank or don't move fast enough. prgtoken Ou
LOWER ENERGY COSTS ACT
Jasmine Crockett (Democrat, TX) \u2014 2023-3-28

. Madam Chair, my constituents foot the bill with increased rates of lung disease, healthcare costs, and child mortality. Who foots the bill for these lower energy costs? Not the polluters. prgtoken It is the little girl on the playground in my district who is inhaling toxic fumes from the concrete plant right next to her school. That little girl will be scarred for the rest of her life with an increased risk of asthma, bronchitis, and cancer just so polluters can make a quick buck. prgtoken You know what makes it crystal clear who the supporters really care about? The Lower Energy Costs Act repeals the home electric rebate program passed last year to reimburse the cost of energy efficient home equipment that would have actually lowered Americans' energy costs. prgtoken House s are lowering energy costs for polluters all right and lowering all of our life expectancy right along with it. prgtoken Madam Chair, H.R. 1 puts politics over people and puts polluters over people.
LOWER ENERGY COSTS ACT
Raúl M. Grijalva (Democrat, AZ) \u2014 2023-3-28

. Mr. Chair, the balance of my time for closing. prgtoken Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for their comments, both from the Committee on Natural Resources members and other colleagues that came forth to speak against the polluters over people act, H.R. 1. prgtoken Members have produced an extreme piece of legislation. As I listened to the rationale today, there were four or five things that were repeated over and over again. It is an extreme piece and a high cost to pay for a speakership, but nevertheless, the rationale today was, as I heard it, patriotism. If you vote ``no'' for H.R. 1, you don't believe in America and you are not a patriot; you support China, Russia, Venezuela, OPEC, and communism. Unfortunately, that is a desperate lie and unnecessary in this debate. prgtoken The other rationale I heard: Let the polluters drive energy policy, production, and the safeguards that the American people need. That was one of the rationales. prgtoken The other one that struck me is collateral damage. Tribes, poor people, 40 million Americans, communities of color, once again, they get thrown under the bus to satisfy the greed of polluters. prgtoken The issues of environmental justice are almost eliminated and downplayed in this whole discussion. That is 40 million people. That is collateral damage that cannot be tolerated and should not be. prgtoken You ignore climate change. You blame other nations and ask Americans to accept a lower bar for themselves and give up the opportunity, as we always have, to historically lead in this world of ours. prgtoken This act is about taxpayer subsidies to a powerful and rich polluter industry that doesn't need the support. It dismantles fundamental public health, clean air, clean water, NEPA, environmental protections, and judicial review. prgtoken We need to remember that this act, H.R. 1, polluters over people, deals with a very consequential issue, and that is the consequential issue of life. H.R. 1 is dangerous to life. The real true act of patriotism, I remind my colleagues, is our responsibility and our oath to protect lives, to extend the future, to deal with fairness and the public's right to know and the public to have a voice in their future. H.R. 1, the polluters over people act, undoes all of that. prgtoken Do we want to go back to the good old days when the rivers were burning, we were clear-cutting forests, when it was all right to admit wrongdoing and not have any consequences? prgtoken Those are not the good old days that people want to go back to. prgtoken If we are going to deal with the climate challenge and the climate action that is needed in this crisis, H.R. 1 needs to be defeated. It is the right thing to do, it is the American thing to do, and it is the patriotic thing to do. prgtoken Mr. Chair, H.R. 1 is dangerous and needs to be defeated. I urge a ``no'' vote, and .
LOWER ENERGY COSTS ACT
Mike Levin (Democrat, CA) \u2014 2023-3-28

I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1, the polluters over people act. prgtoken Although energy independence and lower costs are laudable goals for any energy legislation, unfortunately, this bill achieves neither. Instead, H.R. 1 is a giveaway to Big Oil and their lobbyists, who want to be able to set their own rules at the expense of working families. Instead of putting the needs of the American public at the center of this bill, my friends across the aisle drafted an industry wish list. prgtoken First, H.R. 1 undermines landmark environmental laws and protections like the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act that safeguard public health and keep our drinking water and air clean. It also repeals the methane emissions reduction program, which helps companies reduce their methane pollution. prgtoken This bill makes it easier for polluters to set their own standards and roll back reforms, and it lets Big Oil rubberstamp their own projects with minimal oversight. Environmental disasters are far too common, and unfortunately, H.R. 1 would make it easier for future disasters to happen. prgtoken Second, the polluters over people act worsens the climate crisis by empowering the fossil fuel industry instead of strengthening the foundation for a clean energy future, which is so important. prgtoken During the last Congress, the 117th Congress, we passed policies-- many bipartisan policies--like the bipartisan infrastructure law, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, that invested in climate action at a scale matching the challenge that science tells us that we face. prgtoken This bill that we have before us today not only ignores the additional steps we need to take to reach our climate targets, but it actively takes us backward on climate action by rolling back key provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, which was and is the most significant environmental and climate bill that has ever been passed in the United States or anywhere else. prgtoken We know that data is alarming. A new U.N. report found that global warming could increase by 3.2 degrees Celsius and cause 7 feet of sea level rise by the end of the century if immediate actions are not taken. This is an existential crisis. prgtoken Climate change is real. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know it is real, and we cannot continue to deny this and put our planet at risk with this type of legislation. prgtoken Instead of wasting time on this Big Oil wish list, I would like for us, instead, to focus on actions that will actually expand the employment of clean energy, reduce costs, expand high-capacity transmission, reform the interconnection process, and build on the $1 billion that we secured in the Inflation Reduction Act to ensure that Federal agencies have the resources and expertise to conduct efficient environmental reviews. prgtoken Third, H.R. 1 adds to the deficit. That is right, it add
ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2023
Jeanne Shaheen (Democrat, NH) \u2014 2023-3-28

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, March 29; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that following the conclusion of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of Calendar No. 25, S. 316, postcloture; further, that at 11:30 a.m all postcloture time be considered expired, the pending amendment be withdrawn, no further amendments or motions be in order to the bill, the bill be considered read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of S. 316; that following disposition of the bill, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 28, S. 870; finally, that there be 2 minutes, equally divided, prior to each rollcall vote.
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Tim Kaine (Democrat, VA) \u2014 2023-3-28

I rise in opposition to the amendment, not because my colleague from Wisconsin is completely wrong about the need for WHO accountability. The facts he stated are facts that are troubling. But the bill that is on the floor is a bill to repeal the Iraq war authorizations of 1991 and 2002. The bill has nothing to do with global health or the WHO. prgtoken The Senate has not repealed a war authorization since 1971--52 years. This is a historic debate. prgtoken When we authorized the wars in Iraq, the Gulf war and the invasion of 2003, we did it in authorizations that didn't include extraneous amendments. The Senate deemed these important enough that other matters, even if they were important, were not added onto the declarations of war. prgtoken I strongly believe we should take up this repeal, keep it limited precisely to the question on the floor--should we repeal the Iraq war authorizations--and not add in extraneous matter, even if that matter has some merit. prgtoken And for that reason, I would ask my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
LOWER ENERGY COSTS ACT
Patrick Ryan (Democrat, NY) \u2014 2023-3-28

I rise in strong support of clean water and in opposition to H.R. 1. prgtoken I proudly represent New York's Hudson Valley, the birthplace of the modern environmental movement. prgtoken In 1962, community members fought back against a massive, dirty power plant on Storm King Mountain, overlooking my alma mater at West Point, that would have pumped toxic chemicals into our Hudson River. prgtoken Ultimately, that fight led to the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act, landmark legislation that to this day protects and preserves access to clean water, air, and soil. prgtoken Tragically, my community has a long and well-documented history of big corporations dumping toxic pollutants, particularly PFAS, in our waterways. While there are many reasons I oppose this bill, I rise today to speak on this aspect, in particular. prgtoken You would think that keeping toxic chemicals out of our water and away from our kids would be a priority for everyone in this body. prgtoken Sadly, after reading this bill, that is clearly not the case. Rather than working to help families dealing with water poisoned by these forever chemicals, my colleagues are trying to pass legislation that will actually increase the prevalence of these toxins. prgtoken Every single day in my district, we have kids in Newburgh and seniors in Middletown who cannot access clean water. Asthma rates across my district greatly outpace the national average because of these very pollutants. The Hudson River, which provides drinking water for over 100,000 of my constituents, is still overrun with PCBs and PFAS. To introduce a bill that allows more PFAS and other contaminants into our water without any consideration of safety is an insult to my community and to the American people. prgtoken I will vote against this bill.