macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I claim the time in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. I appreciate where the gentleman is trying to go with this. but even the White House does not want to have this scored neutrally under CBO numbers. They have asked for the Office of Management and Budget numbers because the Coigressional Budget Office ends up counting rate increases that have not taken effect as already being part of revenue. And to the extent that we can stave off stamp tax rate increases. what the gentlemans amendment would do. not stave it off but it includes it. to the extent we do that. then it counts against the budget. The other problem in terms of budget neutrality comes from the Presidents own commission on the Postal Service which recommended that the military years of service for postal employees under the CSRS retirement program. that those years be paid for by the military like they are for every other agency of government instead of having postal patrons for that. This was the Presidents commission which recommended that. What I have talked about. we save money. not take money away. But the question is why should rate payers have to pay for military service in an agency where you have veterans hiring preference? It is not fair to rate payers. It is driving up rates. Finally. let me say. it is not twothirds of the escrow funds that is funding health care. Ninety percent of the escrow funds over the next 5 years are to fund health care. That is more than any other agency in government. Not enough for some Members. I am sure. but this is the appropriate way in my opinion for the post office to operate. We have committed to the White House. We are going to work to try to get this as budget neutral as we can as we move forward to the conference working with OMB. but the Congressional Budget Offices arcane scoring rules make it virtually impossible to get here in this particular case. Once again. let me remind everyone. what is the alternative? The alternative to this legislation is rate increases. postal rate increases. a stamp act. on every man. woman and child that mails a letter in this country. That is what we are trying to stave off. because as rate increases go up. people quit using the post office. and it gets this downward spiral that will lead to the demise of the post office as we know it. That is why this legislation has such broad support from such diverse groups in the private sector and in the public sector. Mr. Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California .
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just note for the record that we did agree at that point as a condition of releasing overpayment by the Post Office Department into pension funds that they. for a temporary period of time. fund the military for CSRS retirees. But we awaited studies. and the Presidents own commission. which has been quoted here. came back and recommended that in point of fact the post office should not be making these payments. that it should to go to the general fund side of the ledger. Mr. Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York .
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. In fact. the Bush administration does try to paint things rosy. but we have to admit. you can feel it out there. You can feel it in towns. You know it. You can feel it within your family. During the Clinton years. everybody was making money. People had jobs. They had good jobs. We could see the economy expanding. As an economist. I will tell you that in business school we learned that there are ups and there are downs in the economy. They are called cycles. A typical business cycle lasts 12 to 14 months. With Clinton in office. it lasted 8 years. There was a reason. He took the hard steps to bring in the money to pay down the debt of the United States. People realized that financially our house was in order. and it was sound. and it was getting sounder. But with Bush. it is completely the opposite. That is one of the reasons Why we have an anemic job creation going on. And other figures that they throw out. oh. unemployment is down. Let me tell you why unemployment would be down. After a while when you cannot find a job and you stop looking for a job because there is just not a job to be had in town. you come off the unemployment rolls. you are not considered unemployed anymore. You are just left. You are not in the figures. If you used to have a job that paid $25 an hour and had vacation time and had a pension. had health care paid. and you look and you look and you look for that job. but there is not a job to be had like that. and you are losing your home because you cannot pay your mortgage. and your kids need to be fed. and the only job you can get is to go down to McDonalds or something and get a minimum wage job. that happens. guess what. you are no longer unemployed. You are no longer unemployed. That is why when they say unemployment is going down. what they mean is people are underemployed. They are taking whatever job they can find. without pensions. without medical health care for their families. These are not the same jobs that they used to have. that we used to have. That is why we feel it. We feel .it in America. We know. Our gut tells us things are not as good today as they were back then under the Democrats. E] 2320
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Well. almost everywhere you look in the economy. if you really understand what is going on. the numbers are not strong. the numbers just are not strong. Again. one of the things we need to do as a country is to invest in our people and invest in our country. make ourselves economically strong. because other countries are doing it. China is investing. They are not spending $1.5 billion a week in Iraq. They are investing in their people. they are building their water systems. their sewer systems. their transportation systems. their telecommunications systems. they are making themselves stronger. That is what countries do in order to bring up their standard of living. Now. I have already told my colleagues that we are really not putting the money into education. Even the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Chairman Greenspan. said the other day in front of our economic -committee. after everything he said and we had all kinds of questions. all kinds of things to say. and he kept coming back to the same thing: there is a problem in education in the United States. and if we do not fix education. nothing else matters. That is what he said to us. pretty much over and over: nothing else matters. It is productivity. So we are not investing in education. we have not been able to pass a transportation bill to put people to work in their own communities. building their transportation systems so they can be more productive. so they do not spend as much time in traffic. for example. and those are goodpaying jobs. Those are goodpaying jobs that spin off other jobs. but we are not doing it from here. Why? Because we are sending the money out. Meanwhile. we are talking about building schools in Iraq and building transportation systems in Iraq. and building water systems in Iraq. but we are really not doing it here in the United States. We are not putting the money where we need to have it put. And. let me also add that we have another major problem. and that is called the trade deficit. The trade deficit. Just earlier this year. when the tariffs came off of textiles with respect to China. our trade deficit went crazy against that country. And it will continue so until we figure out how to invest in ourselves. how to invest in our country. how to collect the taxes and pay down our debt. bring down the deficit every year. so that people will begin to believe us again. that we understand how to run a financially sound household here. I am sure that the gentleman from New York is probably going to talk a little bit about the statistics with respect to trade and what that is doing to US.
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I will just say that the whole issue of Social Security. by the way. pension plans that many of our retirees are on or believe that they are going to be on in a few years. are really due to be lost under the Bush administration. Some of the policies that they have and some of the ideas that they have of really the security. the financial security. of people is really up for grabs with this administration with some of the ideas that they have. but that is another night. We can talk about what they plan to do to the American people on another night. I want to finish off by saying. you know. again. we feel it. You feel it. We feel the difference between what we experienced under President Clinton and what we are experiencing under President Bush. President Bush would have you believe it is because 9/11 happened. and because the terrorists are after us. and because we are now having to spend money in the war. And he is trying to tell you that that is why we have this malaise going on in our economy. I have got news for you. That has very little to do with it. It has to do with the priorities of where you put your money. The priorities should be in investing in America. The priorities should be in trade because we are in a global economy. but in fair trade. not free trade. in fair trade with countries who will not have slave labor competing against us. the American workers. It is about people who hold to promises. if we have trademarks. if we have copyrights. if we have intellectual property. If we spend the money to make a software system. it should not be pirated and copied the next day over in China and then back in our markets to compete against us. But other countries do that. and we sit here as an administration and they do nothing. They do nothing. So they have forgotten to fund e.ducation. they are cutting it back. in fact. We have not even begun to get into the whole idea of health care. If you are not a healthy country. you are not going to be a productive country. We have not talked about investing in technology and transportation and in telecommunication. Those are all issues that are important for us. But these issues of not understanding and not standing up to other countries who are mistreating us when we trade is another reason why this trade deficit is against us. and that in return hurts us economically and builds this debt and this deficit. But one of the biggest reasons why we have deficits and why we are adding to the debt is because again this President has told us that we can go to war. that we can do everything. that we should continue to spend. that we do not need to save as a country. and that somehow or another everything is going to work out. oh. and by the way. we do not have to pay taxes. That is his message. Well. we are smart people. Americans. we are smart people. We understand what is going on. The answer is we need to begin to change this. and we need to get our financial house in order. And I thank the gentlewoman for having taken the time tonight to discuss some of these issues.
Date: 2005-07-27
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I rise today because CAFTA is a raw deal for America. and opposition to this agreement is so strong that the pushers of CAFTA are resorting to lies. deceptions. and backdoot deals. We all know that CAFTA means exporting American jobs because of access to cheap labor markets with almost nonexistent environmental and labor standards. All week long we have heard from the supporters of this badly negotiated trade agreement that they have the votes they need to pass it. But I do not want anybody to be fooled and buy this lie. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of House Members have already indicated that they oppose this bill because it is a bad deal for American workers. They will not even tell us when CAFTA will come to the floor for a vote. Instead. we come to see CAFTA come deceptively to the floor in the middle of the night when they think the American public is not watching. I urge my colleagues to vote their conscience. to not accept backdoor deals. to stand their ground. Vote for what they already know is best for the people of their district. Vote to send CAFTA back to the drawing board.
Date: 2005-07-27
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. last month a few congressional Republicans unveiled a Social Security privatization plan that cuts guaranteed Social Security benefits and continues to raid the Social Security Trust Fund. The Republican majoritys Social Security plan includes a privatization tax that would cut guaranteed benefits for the people who need it most. This effectively replaces part of our guaranteed benefit with a private account and leaves us worse off. depending on the whims of the stock market. And anybody who has had stock during the last 2 years knows what that is. Then. instead of protecting the Social Security Trust Fund. the Republican majority plans to take money out of the trust fund to pay for private accounts. The same congressional Republicans will raid $670 billion more from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. Mr. Speaker. we cannot continue this same type of abuse. We urge all of the Members to look twice at Social Security and save it for the people.
Date: 2005-07-27
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. the House of Representatives today or tonight will vote on ratifying the Central AmericanDominican Republican Free Trade Agreement. also known as CAFTA. This treaty will follow earlier free trade agreements. These agreements caused the poor in all countries to do worse and the wealthy and the rich to do better. I have traveled. not as a Member of Congress. in a lot of these other countries. particularly Costa Rica. which is a beautiful country with great and friendly people. This CAFTA follows NAFTA and will cause loss of jobs in manufacturing in our country as well as the CAFTADR countries. just like it hurt the average folks in Mexico and in our own country. This CAFTA is not a dream. as it is called. it is really going to be a nightmare if you are a bluecollar worker in our country or in one of these countries.
Date: 2005-07-27
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. the reason we do not have enough time is we have so many speakers. but when people talk tonight about how CAFTA will help us with immigration. obviously this side voted for NAFTA. and we have had a bigger problem With illegal immigration. people who are looking for work. coming to this country. I was in Michoacan in February and saw villages that were 60 percent depopulated because they had no opportunity to work. and that was 10 years after NAFTA. Just wait until 10 years after CAFTA. It is outrageous that we are trying to sell this as a benefit to the American worker. The ILO is a weak sister compared to even our laws. and in this case if a country in Central America or Dominican Republic does not enforce their laws. they pay themselves a fine. Come on now. This is so outrageous. I cannot believe we even have it on the floor. To say we are worried about Venezuela the way we are worried about Cuba. do not sell it on that. Sell it on that we are really friends with Costa Rica and Nicaragua and Guatemala and the Dominican Republic. Say we are friends with them. and let us make sure they have a decent standard of living.
Date: 2005-07-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in opposition to the energy conference report before us. While the reliability standards and efficiency incentives in this legislation are not without merit. the entire package is tragically little more than a case study in missed opportunities and misplaced priorities. First. and most astonishingly. this bill does nothing to wean the United States from its dependence on foreign oil. In failing to make meaningful progress on energy independence. the conferees scrapped a measure designed to reduce our oil consumption by a million barrels a day by 2015 and refused to make long overdue improvements in our corporate average fuel economy. CAFE. standards for cars. The predictable resuftwill be less security for the Nation and continued pricing pressure at the pump. . Second. rather than making robust investments in the renewable and advanced efficiency technologies of the future. this legislation lavishes billions of dollars on the polluting industries of the past. Particularly during this period of record profits. does anyone really believe taxpayers need to be giving oil and gas companies another tax break? The conferees decision to abandon the renewable portfolio standard called for in the Senate bill is a serious mistake. and I regret that a -forwardlooking alternative called the New Apollo Energy Project I championed with Representatives JAY INSLEE and RUSH HOLT was blocked from receiving consideration on the House floor earlier this year. Finally. this conference report turns back the clock on decades of hardfought. bipartisan environmental protection. The Clean Water Act. Safe Drinking Water Act and National Environmental Protection Act are all undermined. while State *authority over siting decisions for liquefied natural gas importation terminals is preempted. Additionally. the legislation abdicates all responsibility for the most looming ecological challenge of our time: climate change. Senate language calling for carbon caps to combat global warming was stripped from the final bill. and in amendment I offered with Representatives WAYNE GILCHREST and JOHN OLVER to take the modest step of establishing a national greenhouse gas registry was quashed in April by the House Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker. this legislation goes further where it shouldntand not nearly far enough where it should. It is content to see the world through the rear view mirror of a parked SUV while the rest of the world is flying down the road in hybrids passing us by. At the dawn of the 21st century. the United States deserves an energy policy worthy of its people and of the historic leadership we have always provided on the world stage. This is not that energy policy. I urge my colleagues to oppose the conference report.
Date: 2005-07-28
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I am pleased that the House is finally considering the Energy bill Conference Report today. More importantly it is greatly improved. I have had mixed feelings about the Energy bill. Members and staff on both sides of the aisle have worked very hard to improve it. This hard work has resulted in several key changes that will result in my approval of this Conference Report. One important change is that clean air initiatives were added. My state of Texas ranks first in the nation in toxic manufacturing emissions. first in the number of environmental civil rights complaints. and second on the amount of ozone pollution exposure. The clean air provisions are very important to me and my constituents. I am also pleased to know that provisions for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge have been removed from the bill.
Date: 2005-07-28
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I thank the -entleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong opposition to this unconscionable medical malpractice liability bill. This bill will do nothing to reduce the skyrocketing health care costs in this country. All it will do is deprive people who are already sick and injured of justice. Mr. Speaker. it is undeniable that most Americans do not have access to affordable health care and that many specialists and trauma centers are closing their doors. But instead of addressing our health care crisis head on. my Republican colleagues have come up with H.R. 5. H.R. 5 is as deplorable as it is ineffective. Trying to stabilize medical malpractice insurance rates by capping legitimate victims damages is akin to. trying to put out a forest fire with a squirt gun. I know that H.R. 5 will not magically keep medical malpractice insurance rates down and keep doctors in business because the bill is modeled after Californias Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act. better known as MICRA. My Republican colleagues love to sing the praises of MICRA. But guess what? MICRA did not work. MICRAs caps on pain and suffering damages have not reduced insurance rates for doctors in my State. MICRA was signed into law in 1975. but medical malpractice insurance rates did not stabilize until years after MICRA was passed. In fact. between 1975 and 1993. Californias health care costs rose 343 percent. nearly twice the rate of inflation and 9 percent higher than the national average each year. When Californias insurance rates stabilized. it was because the State passed legislation to directly deal with the insurance problem. They passed an insurance reform bill known as Proposition 103. It is a shame that the Republican leadership of the House is further victimizing victims instead of getting at the root of the real problem. Where is the Republican leadership on the real health care issues that Americans care about? Where is a Republican House bill to provide health care for every working family? Where is a Republican House bill to encourage more students to go into medicine and nursing and for practicing doctors to keep their doors open? Where is a Republican House bill that deals directly with medical malpractice insurance rates? My Republican colleagu4 have not offered bills that will help reform our health care system. Legislation like that would have prevented the forest fire before it even began. Instead. House Republicans cap legitimate victims damage awards. H.R. 5. without insurance and health care reform. is meaningless. H.R. 5 simply reinjures the legitimate victims of medical malpractice. and we should vote "no" on H.R. 5.
Date: 2005-07-28
Speaker: AL GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I want to expres my concern regarding the passage of H.R. 5. the Help Efficient. Accessible. Lowcost. Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2005 also known as the medical malpractice bill. Although some believe that "reforming" medical malpractice litigation will ultimately serve as a solution for skyrocketing healthcare premiums. it is my belief that this legislation is both misguided and harmful to the American people. One of the most contentious provisions within H.R. 5 is a $250.000 cap on awards for noneconomic damages. Placing such a cap allows corporations the opportunity to build into their bottom line a certain amount of liability. Currently. we have a judicial system that creates a fine balance between free corporate enterprise viability and consumer protection. The medical malpractice bill will disrupt this equilibrium in the name of reducing "frivolous" lawsuits without taking into account the implications for those making legitimate claims. This bill has the potential to reduce the incentive for corporations to remedy defective products.and instead may allow those entities to easily assume the loss incurred by ultimately accounting for the cost liability. a sum inevitably less than their sometimes lucrative profits. I respect the efforts of all of my colleagues to address the concerns of their constituencies. However. I would be remiss in that duty if I did not oppose legislation that erodes consumer protection and the ability of the courts to determine appropriate punitive measures for negligent defendants.