macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2007-05-23
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Thank you. What we are doing. you are absolutely right. Mr. RYAN. is breating an incubator for al Qaeda. That is exactly what has occurred. In fact. if you recall. we heard a few years ago a lot of back and forth from the President about whether he did or didnt say that the reason that we actually. went into Iraq was because of the connection. supposed connection. between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Then I know Tony Snow. the White House Communications Director. has said no. we neverdid say there was any connection so almost 400.000 less than prewar probetween Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. duction. Now. yesterday and this morning at Unemployment rate in Iraq went the Coast Guard Academy graduation. from 20 up to 40 percent in December of now. finally. how many years into it. 2006. This problem has increased. I he can hang his hat on there being a know our friends on the other side of connection between al Qaeda and our the aisle continue to try to tell us involvement in Iraq. there are improvements. but the statisWhy? Because he created that situa- tics tell us otherwise. tion there. Because we created an incu- Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you. bator and a hotbed that is an environ- Mr. RYAN. Mr. RYAN. you gave one ment for that. Of course. if you have a great floor speech when you came down culture like that. and I mean the cul- and said these are the same people who ture in which bacteria will grow. just told us we will be greeted as liberators. like a petri dish. if you create a petri These are the same people who told us dish like that and culture it. of course oil revenues will be used to. pay for the you are going to see the bacteria grow. war. These are the same people who If you create an environment in which told us this will be a sweeping mission. bacteria can grow. it is going to ex- These are the same people that told us plode like wildfire. there were weapons of mass destrucNo wonder. It boggles my mind why tion. These are the same people that he believes that what he is saying is told us there was a connection between. not transparent to the American peo- Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. These ple. It certainly is transparent and evi- are the same people that went on and dent in the polling numbers. because he on and on. You can go on YouTube and has literally an approval rating in watch it. I remembered and watched it. terms of the way he has handled this and I thought it was one of your better war that is below 30 percent now. speeches on the floor. I -will reserve You would think that politically we comment on how many you have made. would delight in that as Democrats. but that is one of the better ones.
Date: 2007-05-23
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Thank you. Mr. MEEK. I have to tell you. I have thought recently when people come up to me. you would think that there are people that would say. DEBBIE. KENDRICK. TIM. what does it really matter?. We have been spending billions of dollars for the last 5 years. We are over there in Iraq. Yeah. the American people are opposed to this. and we are in a pretty bad situation over there. and there doesnt appear. to be any end in sight. but how does this affect my life? At the end of the day I am eating. my children are eating. they are going to school. Iraq is far away. and it is not impacting me whether we continue the war in Iraq or dont continue the war in Iraq.. Gradually day by day. the percentage of people that dont feel that way. that get it. that understand what the impact is. not just on the perception of America in the world. but what the domestic daytoday impact is. is growing. Besides the Presidents popularity ratings. which are in the toilet. we have a situation here where people are realizing. for example. that our National Guard is unable to be 100 percent ready to take care of us and do the job that we actually created the National Guard to do.
Date: 2007-05-23
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

We are wrapping up in a few minutes. but I have got this gas tank replica here. which is pretty ancientlooking. Its actually decrepit itself. I bring it with me to the flooF because it is the only explanation that I can find as to why our good friends on the other side of the aisle and this President seem totally unresponsive in trying to address this problem and work with us. My only explanation is that perhaps they dont pump their own gas. or perhaps the last time they actually filled their own tank. and saw that ticker. and realized how much it cost to fill up a tank is when gas pumps look like this. Thats my only explanation. given this is the 30something Working Group. Maybe it has been since the 1950s that they filled their own tank. unlike the people that we represent. who are trying. struggling to fill their tank every day. We are going to continue to back up our words with action. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 30something Working Group under the leadership of our Speaker. NANCY PELOSI.
Date: 2007-05-23
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

We encourage you. any of the Members. anyone listening. to sign onto our Web site. The charts that we have been describing tonight are up on that Web site. You can reach us. email -us. at 30somethingdems@mail.house.gov. and you can also reach our Web site by signing on to www.speaker.gov and look for the 30something link. and you can find all the things that we are working on in the 30something Working Group.
Date: 2007-05-24
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I want to call to the attention of all of the Members that our new Clerk of the House is continuing to make impressions. She is on the cover of Crisis magazine for this month. the official publication of the NAACP. And she is president of the local chapter. I just thought that if you dont have a copy. she is standing right over there.
Date: 2007-05-24
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

in this Congress. a very big difference. This legislation does not require that bundled contributions to political action committees. often referred to as PACs. be disclosed. Why are PACs omitted from the disclosure requirements in this legislation? As has been recently reported in the BNA Money & Politics Report. "Democrats newfound majority status has made them the biggest recipients of campaign money from lobbyists and others. a fact that could increase their wariness about passing strict new rules." "For example. a new analysis posted on the politicalmoneyline.com Web site. and based on Federal Election Commission reports. found that in the first quarter of 2007. Federal political action committees. that is the PACs this legislation exempts. reported giving all Federal candidates $27 million. of which almost $17 million. or 62 percent. went to Democrats. and only 38 percent went to Republicans. The Democrats . newfound- fundraising prowess could cause them to have second thoughts about such proposals as increased disclosure of bundled contributions arranged by lobbyists. some observers said." 0l 1350 It appears these observers were correct. The majority has let the color of money dampen their desire for more openness and reform. The loophole in this bill that exempts bundled contributions to PACs is big bnough to ride a Democratic donkey through. If we are requiring the disclosure of bundled contributions to political party committees. those same disclosure rules should also apply to contributions to PACs. Party committees represent all members of that party affiliation. PACs. on the other hand. represent more narrow. special interests. Why should the former be exposed to more sunshine. but not the latter? The fact that PACs give more money to Democrats is not a serious answer. Time and again the majority party finds itself presenting legislation that picks favorites. when what the American people want is more honesty and more -accountability. This motion to recommit would achiev6 that by ineluding bundled contributions to PACs under the same provisions- that cover Federal candidates. other PACs. and political party committees. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit so that we can have a more open and honest government. To put it another way. what was good for the Democrats last year should be good for the Democrats this year. Madam Speaker. the American people want and deserve a government that operates in the sunlight and not in the shadows.
Date: 2007-05-24
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. I thank my colleague. I also urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit. During the earlier discussion. Mr. SMITH talked about how the bill that we passed last year out of the Judiciary Committee was a bipartisan bill. In fact. it was a bipartisan vote in the Judiciary Committee. But what he failed to mention. and in the spirit of bipartisanship earlier I thought I wouldnt raise. was when that amendment that was attached in the Judiciary Committee got to the Rules Committee. the Rules Committee took it out. So the lobbying reform bill that the Republicans brought to the floor of the House stripped out the amendment that Mr. SMITH. number one. claims bipartisanship on right now. Number two. the rieapure that we have brought before us today is. in fact. broader than the amendment that the Judiciary Committee voted on last year and. in fact. captures more bundling activity. It doesnt just capture very narrow bundling activities. it is broader. and. in fact. would capture a lot more of the bundling and disclose a lot more than the bill that Mr. SMITH referred to. So. in fact. it is a very important step forward in terms of the publics right to know. Finally. the purpose of dealing with the registered lobbyists is registered lobbyists register for a reason. They are paid to try and influence legislation before Congress. They are paid to try and influence Members of Congress with respect to- legislation. So the whole purpose of this is to go get at that nexus. Registered lobbyists dont register to go lobby a PAC. They dont go register to lobby the NRA PAC or to go lobby an environmental PAC or go lobby a righttolife PAC. So this is drawn to get at the issue that we are trying to get out in this Congress. which is to change the way we do business here and to make sure that we address the nexus between registered lobbyists and the legislative process. That is the focus. This takes us out of that focus. so I urge that we oppose this particular motion to recommit.
Date: 2007-05-24
Speaker: CORRINE BROWN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I have never supported the war in Iraq. From the very outsetof the conflict. I have stood as an ardent opponent of the war. and voted against the War Resolution. House Joint Resolution 114. which "authorized the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." when it came before the House of Representatives on October 8. 2002. 1 have argued from the beginning of this conflict that the President intentionally misled the American public by supplying them with spurious grounds for going to war. I cannot. in good conscience. return to my district over the Memorial Day recess having cast a vote to continue funding. and henceforth. provide financial support for the continuation of this horrible war. Moreover. the bills lack of a timetable for troop withdrawal is not acceptable. This is a war without any end in sight. without any sort of deadlines or oversight. and the administration will continue to throw away billions and billions of dollars in this conflict if we cannot pass a bill with timelines or restrictions. Clearly. the November midterm elections demonstrated that the majority of the American public is bitterly opposed to the war in Iraq. Just today in fact. a New York Times/ CBS poll showed that "over 61 percent of Americans say that the United States should have stayed out of Iraq. while over 75 percent say that things [in Iraq] are going badly" (New York Times. May 24. 2007). I stand with the American people today. and although I wholeheartedly support our troops. I cannot support a bill to continue funding a terrible war while the White House refuses to accede to readiness standards or any other measures that Testrict their oil war in Iraq. It is estimated that we have already spent over a trillion dollars of taxpayer money in Iraq: This is funding which we could be using for social services for our own citizens. Indeed. important items like education. prescription drugs. health care and homeland security goes underfunded while a disastrous war. unwillingly being paid for by U.S. taxpayers. wages on. . And yet the administration continues to request blank checks to.be used at their discretion. A perfect example of this is the money sent over there in the period. between May 2003 and June 2004. when our military was carrying huge. wrapped stacks of $100 bills over to Iraq-$12 billion total -n cash- This money was sent over there without oversight. without any sort of accountability. and many are now worried that the same insurgent groups that are battling against our troops may have bought their weapons with this money. And the argument put forward by the Bush~administratibn for sending money over in this way. was that Iraq was without a functioning banking system. This utterly ludicrous reasoning is nearly as preposterous as their lies and poor reasons for going to war in the first place. like scaring the American people into believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. which. to this day. have not been discovered. President Bush has asked for a blank check and the American people have stamped his account "insufficient funds."
Date: 2007-05-24
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. today I voted against the 2007 Supplemental War Funding Bill. I opposed the bill not for what it containedbut for what it lacked. The bill lacked strong accountability measures for the Iraqi government and omitted readiness standards to ensure that deployed troops are fully prepared and equipped for duty. While this bill represents an important step forward from where we were before the election. it does not go far enough. In the last election. the American public made clear that they wanted.a change of direction in this war. This is not change enough. On May 1. 2003. the day the President declared an end of hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. there were 142.000 American soldiers in Iraq. Today there are 155.000. On that day there had been 138 American casualties and 542 wounded in Iraq. Today the number of casualties is 3.476 and the number of wounded is 25.225. The Iraqi people have also suffered. The estimated number of Iraqi civilians killed by violence since May 2003 is between 53.000 and 63.000. The bill voted on today does little to reverse this course. The Congress sent the President a bill that would have begun the process of changing worsening conditions in this war by holding the Iraqis accountable for taking the steps necessary to achieve political reconciliation and greater stability. The bill also provided additional funding to go after Osama bin Laden. the Taliban and al Qaeda By.yetoing that bill. the President missed an opportunity to change direction in Iraq and complete the job in Afghanistan. By vetoing that bill. the President said "no" to ensuring that our troops had the training and equipment they need. By vetoing that bill he said "no" to ensuring that we hold the Iraqi Government accountable to the benchmarks which the Bush administration and the Iraqi Government have said are absolutely necessary to achieve political stability in Iraq. We voted to give our troops every penny the President asked for and more. We also insisted on accountability to protect our troops. The President wanted the money without adequate accountability. Our troops deserve better and so do the American people. %
Date: 2007-05-24
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Califomia

Mr. Speaker. this is a great day for Americas workers. Today the House once again passes the minimum wage increaseand this time we expect this bill to be signed by the President. Americas minimum wage workers have been waiting a long time for a raise. The last time they saw an increase was nearly 10 years ago. Since that last increase. in 1997. the value of the minimum wage has dropped to its lowest level in over half a century. Last summer. I had the honor to meet a woman named Sheryl Wade in Louisville. Kentucky. Sheryl told me at a forum about life at the minimum wage. She couldnt afford housing for herself and 3 sons. She had to move in and out with relatives and friends. Her boys had to constantly change schools and change friends. She could not afford health care. Sheryl is a hardworking American. sick and tired of barely living paycheck to paycheck. not making enough to get bt. Mr. Speaker. her day has come. When we increase the minimum wage with this bill. from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour over 2 years. the poorest working families in this country will see a $4.400 increase in their annual incomeenough to pay for 15 months of groceries for a family of three. Thanks to this increase. in 2009. a family of four will move from 11 percent below the pov.erty line to 5 percent above the poverty line. Thanks to this increase. 13 million workers will see their pay go up. directly or indirectly. That includes 7.7 million wohien and 3.4 million parents: Over 6.3 million children will see their parents income rise. . This raise in wages is long overdue. Thanks to the hard work of religious. civil rights. labor. and community organizationsand American voters and working familiesit is finally corriing to pass. Im proud of the work this Democratic Congress has done. This House. under new leadership. is putting working families and Americas middle class first. What a change that isand weve only just begun.
Date: 2007-06-05
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of H.R. 1175. a bill that I have introduced for two consecutive Congresses. I am pleased to see that the bill is on the Suspension Calendar today. I would like to thankthe House leadership for making that happen. H.R. 1175 would increase the ceiling on the federal share of the Orange County. California. Regional Water Reclamation Projectfrom $20 million to $51.874.849. This project will ultimately allow Orange County to complete its innovative groundwater replenishment system. which is designed to reuse advanced treated wastewater to recharge the aquifer in northern Orange County. This aquifer is the primary source of drinking water for over 144.000 families in Orange County each year. serving about 2.3 million. residents from north and central Orange County. This reclamation effort has the potential of creating a new water supply of 72.000 acrefeet per year. The OC Groundwater Replenishment Project is an innovative program which has drawn national and international attention. Many U.S. states and foreign nations--including Japan. Korea. Taiwanhave come to Orange County to look at our tertiary cleaning system. They have observed that reusing recycled waterespecially important in the arid westwill help preseriUand recharge overdrawn river and groundwater supplies. and will help protect our environment from unexpected scarcity of water. What this bill does is to increase the. federal share of the project. bringing it closer to the 25 percent level. the level at which almost every other reclamation project is funded in the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992 and the Reclamation Cycling and Water Conservation Act. The project is not just important to Orange County. California. but also to the entire west.em United States. By recycling our own water. we will not rely so heavily on the Colorado River Aqueduct or water -from the San Francisco Bay Delta. Members from both sides of the aisle recognize the need for this project and have been consistently supportive of this effort. I would like to thank. in particular. my colleagues. from Orange County who are all original cosponsors of this bill. I appreciate their continued support for this legislation. and this important project. Let me thank. again. the gentleman from West Virginia. Mr. RAHALL. for his support. as well as Ranking Member YOUNG. Subcommittee Chairwoman NAPOLITANO and Ranking Member MCMORRIS for their overwhelming support of H.R. 1175. Finally. let me thank Denis Bilodeau. Irv Pickier. Virginia Grebbien. Philip Anthony. Craig Miller. and everyone affiliated with the Orange County Water District and Orange County Sanitation District for their hard work and leadership in groundwater treatment and. recycling. Their innovation has put Orange County at the forefront of water recycling and groundwater replenishment technology. I thank them for all they continue to do for Orange County. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
Date: 2007-06-05
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

I thank the gentleman for yielding and I thank all of my colleagues who have spoken on this resolution and certainly to BARBARA LEE. my colleague from California. who has been such a not only supporter and the author of this resolution but all of -our efforts to change the situation in Darfur. I had the honor to accompany Congresswoman LEE and our Speaker to Darfur a year ago February and saw the incredible devastation and the brutality and the genocide that is taking place there and vowed to do whatever I can to see if we can change it. I have been wearing this green band to save Darfur for over a year and a half. But this band will not save the people of Darfur. all of my constituents. thousands of my constituents who have marched throughout the Bay area. who have come across the country to march to save Darfur will not save Darfur. What will save Darfur is the nations of the world owing up to their responsibility to reject this genocide. to stop this genocide. to stop this holocaust against these people and get the government of Sudan to do so. Of course today we are here to call upon the nation of China to owe up to its responsibilities. given its huge influence. its economic influence. its military influence. its resource influence in Sudan. to use that influence to get the government of Sudan to start to sit down and to negotiate with all of the parties to end the arms trade that is taking place. to stop the economic engagement until such time as these people in Darfur are once again made safe. until these people in Darfur are once again allowed to return to their villages. to their families and start to put their lives back together and to end the genocide. Thats what is necessary to be done. My colleague Mr.. GOODLATTE referred to the Olympics. Its hard to believe that the world is going to look upon the host of the Olympics and see there at the same time a nation that is underwriting a genocide. That is absolutely on a daily basis by its inaction and then by its positive actions underwriting and allowing the genocide to go forward. Its not that China can stop this alone. but in concert with the rest of the nations of the world that have called out for an end to this genocide. to take actions against the economic activity and the military activity in Sudan. Congresswoman LEE has pushed the effort of divestiture that has been followed up in many States and cities and universities and other entities. This has got to continue to stop the genocide that now so many of my colleagues have witnessed firsthand on those terrible. terrible visits to Darfur where we see the worst of humanity and the violence against these individuals and their families and their children. It has got to stop. I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this bipartisan resolution to the floor to help us try and end the genocide in Darfur.