macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2005-03-01
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. ohe of the things that came up in my town meetings. talking about the debt and privatization would add to in America. the gentleman from Florida and I served with a wise Republican member.of the Florida Senate. Senator Jim King. whom when we were engaged in a debate with our House colleagues and it was the State Senate versus the State House and our position in the State Senate was we should not be adding to debt and we should not be continuing to borrow to pay for our needs. he likened that concept to using our MasterCard to pay off our Visa. Mr. Speaker. that is really the policy that the President is advocating. He appears to think it is okay to add to the debt. make our deficit much more significant. to overrely on nations like China and Japan. I feel an overwhelming sentiment coming from my constituents. and just by applying a little logic. why would we want to leave our constituents future retirement security in the hands of the economic whims or decisions of foreign governments. That is essentially what is being done when we talk about privatizing Social Security. The other really big issue that the President has tried to stress and underscore and use to try to relieve the concern that senior citizens may have over his plan. he is saying do not worry. people over 55 and over. we are not going to touch your benefits. nothing is going to happen. Well. as neutrally as I possibly could. and some people might chuckle about that. I presented that argument in my town meetings last week.. And overwhelmingly. my constituents. -the constituents of the gentleman from Florida . understood when we have a massive program like we have in Social Security in America. and we are talking about the kinds of numbers and the impact that privatization would have on that program. $1.4 trillion cost to privatize in the first 10 years. and another $3.5 trillion in 10. years after that. when we apply a radical surgical procedure to a program that size. they understand there is no way you are going to avoid impacting them. It is not possible. They are smarter than that. The other reason for the answer to the question of why senior citizens care about this. assuming they believe the President. say they take the President at his word and believe it will not affect people 55 and older. the reason they care is they understand that our generation. their children and their grandchildren. we are not the generation of savers that they were. They were the generation of savers. We are the generation of racking up our credit card bills and trying to have as much as we possibly can. There is nothing wrong with that. but it needs to be recognized that is a policy where Americans continue to add to their debt and there are eventually consequences to that.
Date: 2005-03-01
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Exactly. And what the gentleman said about debt in general and making sure that we continue to have sound public policy when it comes to Social Security. these senior citizens understand that because we do not have the savings in generations following them. we have to make sure that we adopt an approach to fixing Social Security that recognizes that the emphasis should be on encouraging savings. There is a way to do that without moving to a radical proposal like privatizing the program. Chairman Greenspan testified before the Committee on Financial Services and was pretty unequivocal in his testimony before our break about what he believes the direction we should take is. His focus was absolutely on any policy change that moved away from encouraging a national savings was not a sound one. Almost every one of the comments that he made undermined the Presidents arguments. He testified in front of our committee that the overriding longterm retirement issue facing the Nation is increasing national savings. Before I yield back. I want to tell my colleagues a really telling story. The thing that I think is important to stress is that Social Security was created in 1935. It was created by Democrats. it was sustained by Democrats. it was improved by Democrats and that has generally been virtually without any Republican support for Social Security. It was not created with Republican votes. It has not been fixed by Republican leadership. The gentleman from Massachusetts . our ranking member on the Committee on Financial Services. asked Chairman Greenspan this question: Mr. Chairman. in 1935 if you were a Member of Congress. would you have voted for Social Security? The chairmans response was: I cant answer that question. I think I will just leave it at that and allow that to underscore where the support for Social Security is. It certainly has not been on the administrations side of the issue.
Date: 2005-03-01
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

I just want to expound on a couple of the things that the gentleman said. Given from the three of us. me being from the opposite gender from the two gentlemen I am here on the floor with. I think it is important to note the effect that privatization would have on women. We have talked about this before but just to give you an idea of what women face when it comes to the comparison to men. In 2003. the average monthly Social Security benefit for a woman was only $798. That is $241 less than the average mans monthly retirement. Womens earnings are still 77 percent relative to men in 2002 dollars. Women who reach retirement age live on average at least 3 years longer than men. So this is a female problem. to say the least. Social Security is the only source of retirement income for one in three unmarried retired women. That is a really significant. number. Without Social Security. 52 percent of white women. 65 percent of African American women and 61 percent of Hispanic women would live in poverty upon retirement. It provides more than half of the total income for female widows and single women. The other thing I wanted to expand upon that the gentleman from Florida talked about is the issue does arise. where is the Democrats plan? Do my colleagues remember. I think it was a Wendys commercial. the really famous Wendys commercial. "Wheres the beef?" That is what I would like to know. and my constituents want to know about the Presidents plan. where is the beef? It is very nice to talk about vague outlines of what you would like to see happen. pie in the sky concepts. but generally in my legislative experience. when a President or a governor in my experience makes a proposal. they usually send the legislative body a bill. They usually get a Member to sponsor it. And then we have an 6pportunity to dissect it and debate it and then the minority party offers their alternative. It is time. It really is time. It is the President that has laid out that this is a crisis. We call it a longterm challenge. We would be happy to sit down and discuss our approach to that longterm challenge but we are in an applestooranges situation here.
Date: 2005-03-01
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to expand on something since we are going to try to focus on young people in our caucus. A really good example of what impact this proposal would have on younger people. a 20yearold who enters the workforce today. over the course of their career would experience a $152.000 loss in their Social Security benefits that they would have otherwise received. It provides disability insurance that young families need. There is no private insurance plan today that can match the disability benefits that Social Security provides. For a worker in her mid20s with a spouse and two children. Social Security provides the equivalent of a $350.000 disability insurance policy. Most young people cannot afford or obtain that kind of coverage outside of Social Security. And let us say. God forbid. a young parent dies suddenly. I heard the gentleman from South Carolina today talk about a person who came to one of his townhall meetings whose spouse died when she was 35 years old and Social Security provides the survivor benefits that are left behind for those kids. To such an extent. most people do not realize Social Securitys survivor benefits will replace as much as 80 percent of the earnings for a 25yearold averagewage worker who dies. leaving two young children and a spouse. That is the equivalent of a $403.000 life insurance policy. And the gentleman from South Carolina talked very poignantly this morning about the gentleman that he has known for years. and had never heard this story. that his 35yearold wife. when she passed away. could at least rest in peace knowing that her life and her work had provided for her childrens future benefit even in death. And that is the type of rug that we are pulling out from under people if we go in this direction.
Date: 2005-03-01
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. quest of Ms. WOOLSEY) to revise and exSpeaker. actually what I want to close tend their remarks and include extrawith is I want to quote the President neous material:) because the President has said that Ms. WOOLSEY. for 5 minutes. today. leadership means not passing problems Mr. CUMMINGS. for 5 minutes. today. on to future generations and future Mr. DEFAZIO. for 5 minutes. today. Presidents. And I take him at his word. Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. for 5 minand I am hopeful that we do not go for- utes. today. ward with this proposal because this Ms. LEE. for 5 minutes. today. plan to privatize Social Security flies Mr. PALLONE. for 5 minutes. today. in the face of his stated belief that we Ms. JACKSONLEE of Texas. for 5 minneed to exercise some leadership and utes. today. that Social Security is pre- Mr. STRICKLAND. for 5 minutes. make sure today.a ecrtyi pe served into the future for our genera- today. tion and for our childrens generation. (The following Members (at the reAnd I look forward to working with quest of Mr. OSBORNE) to revise and exboth gentlemen. tend their remarks and include extra-
Date: 2005-03-02
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise today to voice my opposition to this Job Training Improvement Act because it does nothing to improve job training in our country. Congress has an opportunity to take the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act and address the needs of millions of unemployed Americans. Instead. we are presented with a proposal that reduces the impact of job training programs by cutting funding to traditional job training providers such as the veterans employment programs and Perkins Vocational Education Programs. This bill also consolidates the adult. dislocated worker and employment service programs and their funding while repealing the Wagner Peyser Act. Wager Peyser established the Federal performance and accountability standards that ensure our job training programs are quality programs that place able workers in appropriate positions in the workforce. Furthermore. this bill would allow federally. funded job training organizations to question a candidate about their religious beliefs. Ive been a Christian all my life. However. I do not feel it is the place of the Federal Government or ahyone receiving Federal funds to question a job candidate about their religious beliefs. At this time. Congress needs to place more resources into workforce training. not reduce. job training programs that are successful. The Houston area continues to have an unemployment rate higher than the national average. as does the State of Texas. This bill will slow down the ability of those who need workforce training from getting it. and right now this economy needs all the help it can get. H.R. 27 is bad public policy and will further slow our efforts to strengthen our economy.
Date: 2005-03-02
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

I thank the gentlemanfor yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of his amendment. and I find it just incredible that all of a sudden discrimination becomes the core of religious organizations. for those of us who have spent almost 40 years working with faithbased organizations in our communities involved in all kinds of public service endeavors. all kinds of delivery of services to people in need. to help members of our community in almost everything. from education to child care to job training to substance abuse to a whole range of activities that are absolutely essential to binding our community together. Nobody said that discrimination was a fundamental part of this operation all through the sixties and seventies. the eighties or the nineties. None of these organizations ever said they were unable to deliver these services. unwilling to deliver these services. unwilling to help these people whom they have chosen to extend the services of their organization to. when they took Federal money said they could not do this because they needed to discriminate. But all of a sudden now the suggestion is that the basic tenet is that you must be able to discriminate. You must be able to discriminate or you will not deliver these services. What does it also say about the use of the taxpayers dollars? If the best person to provide the substance abuse counseling. if the best person to provide the child development. if the best person to provide the job training is not of the same religion. is the taxpayer getting a fair shake when they hire somebody else that does not have those qualifications? Should we not be looking for the best person to provide these services? You cannot maintain your religious character. you cannot maintain the religious character of your organization unless you can discriminate in hiring? Organizations. again. have never suggested that they have -been diminished because they ran a child development center. They have never said they have been diminished because they ran an afterschool program because they could not discriminate. What is this liberty to discriminate against somebody else using Federal dollars? This is absolutely unacceptable.
Date: 2005-03-03
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. this bill does have flaws. as have been identified. and I think the criticisms are fairly taken. And the ranking gentlewomans amendment is a sound one I will support. But in the end. we do need to have special elections in the case of a catastrophe. I voted for this last year and will vote for it again. The problem is it misses the point of what happens in the 45 days or. if the gentlewoman from California passes. in the 75 days. What happens then? I read with some alarm the "Roll Call" article of December 6.-2004. on this subject. and I will quote from that article: "The country is going to be under martial law until we have elections anyway." That was actually said by the gentleman from Ohio . chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee. And I just must say. is the agenda martial law? Because that appears to be the case. and absent a constitutional amendment to allow for a temporary appointment. we will have martial law and the elimination of a Republic in this country.
Date: 2005-03-08
Speaker: CORRINE BROWN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I was deeply saddened to hear of the sudden passing of my former colleague. Tillie Fowler. My prayers and deepest regrets go out to her and her immediate family. Buck. and her two girls. Tillie Ann and Elizabeth. Tillie and I shared a lot in common. In fact. in 1992. we came up to Washington together as members of the same class of elected rep-. resentatives. This class was so dynamic. and filled with so many new and soon to be influ-. ential women members. that it was referred to as "The Year of the Woman." One distinct adjective to describe Tillie is that she was a tremendous fighter. She struggled hard for what she believed in. and for the betterment of the people and the region she served. Above all. TilliQ loved her country. and fought hard to protect the freedoms we enjoyeven the freedom to disagree. Tillie was a woman of great distinction. highly respected. and was always extremely active in her community. She served our country well. particularly in her strong support of the military. specializing in issues concerning womens roles and rights within the military. She was also a woman with strong leadership qualities and one who believed in the value of volunteerism and community service. Even though Tillie worked on the opposite end of the political spectrum. I recognize tremendous contributions Tillie made. and influence she had within the Republican Party. In 1998 in fact. she was chosen by her colleagues within the Republican Party to be the Vice Chairman (or Chairwoman) of the Republican Conference. This honor made her the highest ranking woman in the U.S. Congress at the time she retired. in 2000. She also served for 6 years as Deputy Majority Whip in the Party. paving the way for future women to move up the political ranks here on Capitol Hill. Moreover. when she obtained a seat on the House Armed Services Committee. she was the only Republican woman at that time on the committee. Given the tremendous influence the military plays in the city of Jacksonville. her appointment to this committee was more than critical. Upon leaving Congress. Tillie worked hard to ensure a strong U.S. military was recognized by the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of Defense. She went on to receive the Navys Distinguished Public Service Award and the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service. both of which was the highest civilian awards given by the Navy and DOD. Additionally. I served with Tillie on the T & I committee. and crossed party lines numerous times to work together and do what was best for the city of Jacksonville and North Florida as a whole. My heart and prayers go out to Tillies dear family during this difficult time. They will remain in my thoughts and prayers.
Date: 2005-03-09
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. let me commend the leadership of this committee and that of the Highway subcommittee for all of the -hard work and bipartisan work that has gotten us to this point today. Today. this committee is sending a message to the American people that investment in the Nations transportation system is our number one priority. I do not have to tell you that the clock is working against the infrastructure of our country. my State and particularly my district. The longer we wait to enact a reauthorization bill. the more costly it becomes to adequately address the Nations crumbling infrastructure. Our Nations transportation system is .the backbone of our � economy and way of life. and we cannot affQrd to shortchange either one of those. Late last. year. the Texas Section of Civil Engineers released its 2004 infrastructure report card in which.the States infrastructure -received a dismal cumulative assessment of below average.. The .Texas Transportation Commission can fund less than 40 percent of the worthy road and highway projects. Twelve thousand. of the States 48.000 bridges are structurally deficient. Seventeen are in my district. Congestion is on the rise in urban areas. and deterioration of air quality poses an even greater risk to the health of our residents. particularly seniors and children. . I have one amendment that was accepted but there is another one that is still in question ..where we really. need. to address congestion. urban congestion. Our constituents have spoken. and we must act. It is imperative that we commit ourselves to working together to passing a final bill today. or tomorrow. that addresses our Nations crumbling infrastructure. This creates badly needed goodpaying jobs. which we need to give attention to. It addresses our congestion and poor. air quality. expands inclusion of minority and womenowned businesses in Federal transportation contracting and makes donor highway funding equity close to a reality. We must get this bill through conference and to the Presidents desk as soon as we can. I thank both of the leaderships. majority and minority. I support this bill and hope that we can move it along rapidly.
Date: 2005-03-09
Speaker: CORRINE BROWN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman YOUNG) and the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member OBERSTAR) and the gentleman from Oregon for their hard work in bringing this bill to the Floor. I do want to point out. it is 17 months late. Americas transportation infrastructure is in need of significant additional funding. and we need to act fast. but knowing how much money we truly need to fund the Nations transportation infrastructure. I hope that the other body will pass the original bill of $318 billion so that we can get the best bill possible in conference. I appreciate the hard work and compromise involved in drafting this bill. but the current funding formula is unfair to many of the States who need transportation dollars. Transportation funding is a winwin for everyone involved. States get to improve transportation infrastructure. that creates economic development. puts people back to work and. most important. enhances safety and improves local communities. Unfortunately. we are unable to add rail to this bill. but that does not mean that rail infrastructure is taken care of. We have dangerously underfunded rail security and are now scrambling to protect our transit passengers. We are also ignoring and underfunding high speed rail which is one of the best ways to move citizens and improve congestion on our highways. By far. the most important thing that this bill is missing is the funding for Amtrak. How do we write a comprehensive transportation bill that does not include passenger rail? Every civilized country in the world supports passenger rail but this country. Let me correct that. 66 percent of the American people support passenger rail. It is just this Bush administration. along with Secretary Mineta. that is ignoring the needs of transportation. our friend. Secretary Mineta. We are spending $1 billion a week in Iraq. that is $4 billion a month. but this administration is zeroing out funding for Amtrak. Our committee needs to take passenger rail seriously and fundAmtrak at the level it is needed to provide service to thousands of citizens every day. This bill is the first step in passing a real transportation funding bill that will meet the needs of the Nations transportation and infrastructure and the citizens who need it. and I want to emphasize first step.
Date: 2005-03-09
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I just received a call from the Texas Department of Transportation. They are very much opposed to this amendment. I want to clarify that because the call just came in. We do need the flexibility. but they want the flexibility to remain with the State rather than authorizing something here.