macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. as the number of uninsured Americans continues to increase and health insurance costs continue to rise by double digits annually. it is clear that something must be done. I commend our friends across the aisle for coming up with a plan they think works. While I have great respect for the gentleman from New Jersey (Ranking Member ANDREws) and the gentleman from Wisconsin. . I have to disagree with them. Their substitute will have the unintended consequence of raising. not lowering. costs for small businesses trying to offer health insurance. It will impose new mandates on employers and saddle the American public with yet another government program to fund. The proponents of the plan claim that the new "small employer health benefits plan" is modeled after ours here in the Federal Government. Unfortunately. unlike the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. health insurance provided under the Democrat substitute would be subject to more than 1.500 State mandates that make up 15 percent of the rising costs of health insurance. That increased cost would likely be funded by higher taxes. adding another burden to small businesses. And on top of that. the substitute would force small businesses to deal with a host of new mandates. Their substitute mandates employers provide health coverage to every employee who has been employed for more than 3 months. It mandates that employers pay 50 percent of -the health care premiums for employees. It mandates that they cover the dependents of their workers. More mandates are supposed to lower costs? The Democrat substitute just does not make sense. In contrast. AHPs utilize the strengths of the employerbased system. the private market. competition. economy of scale enjoyed by large union and employer plans. and ERISAs preemption of State mandates. to lower costs. Mr. Speaker. AHPs are supported by our Nations small businesses. The NFIB. the National Retail Federation. the National Association of Wholesalers and Distributors. the National Restaurant Association. Associated Builders and Contractors. National Association of Homebuilders. the United States Chamber of Commerce. and others are strongly supportive of this legislation. I hope my colleagues will join me in offering assistance to our Nations small businesses and their workers by supporting AHPs and- opposing the Democrat substitute. Mr. Speaker I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker. we do not know the cost. It is going to be out of reason. I believe. And while AHP legislation will be implemented quickly. this Democrat substitute might take years to get up and running. In addition. the funds are subject to appropriations. And if an appropriation did not go through or did not provide enough funds. small employers and their workers would be left hanging. Let me make myself clear. I believe our Nations employersponsored health care system is a success story. Employers provide coverage for the vast majority of our Nations population. 131 million Americans obtain their coverage from private employers. The Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Department of Labor through our oversight of ERISA have jurisdiction over employersponsored health care. So I support using the employerbased system to address the problems of the uninsured. FE 1730 However. the way to do that is to build on the success of the current system by utilizing the strengths that enable large employers and unions to offer Cadillac health plans. AHPs are the way to do that. Vote down this amendment. Vote for AHPs. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks. and include extraneous material on H.R. 22.
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana . the former chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee. who has played a lead role in moving this bill to where it is today. and spent 6 long years in the vineyards laboring on this when he was chairman of the committee.
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. the committee intends that the Postal Service will exercise the more clearly delineated rulemaking powers provided under this section in a way that is rationally related to the policy objectives set out in thie revised statute. and it is predicated upon an understanding of the effect the regulations will have on the conditions in the postal sector.
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. the committee further expects that the Postal Regulatory Commission will distinguish carefully between abuses of the Regulatory Authority set out in section 404 and the legitimate exercise of managerial discretion by the Postal Service in its implementation of the complaint provisions contained in section 205 of the bill.
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York . the chief author of this. someone who has championed this cause since I came to Congress.
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah . who has been very helpful in putting this bill together.
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. we have tried on this legislation to not get into some of the specific shortcomings of Postal Service delivery on ZIP codes and the like. but I want to tell the gentleman that I have looked at this Taylorsville issue. I want to pledge to work with the gentleman from Utah and with the Postmaster General to make sure these needs are resolved and to support a thoughtful solution for the city of Taylorsville. and just assure the gentleman that that is a priority.
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman from California for his support of this legislation and his efforts. I think it is important. as he points out. that all of these different impacts are taken into account when the Postal Service undertakes the realignment and consolidation of postal facilities. I look forward to working with him and the Postal Service as these unfold.
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut . the vice chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. please include the attached exchange of letters between"Chairman DON YOUNG of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Chairman F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER. Jr.. of the Committee on the Judiciary. Chairman BILL THOMAS of the Committee on Ways and Means and myself.
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yieldingme this time. This amendment that is proposed would remove a provision from a very carefully crafted piece of legislation that would require the first vacant slot on the Postal Service Board of Governors to be filled by an individual with unanimous backing by labor unions. Currently there are 11 members. This bill would provide that one of those seats become a labor seat. certainly not documented by labor. One seat would be a labor seat. The provision requiring the seat to become a labor seat has been in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act for 11 years. No group on either side of the issue has ever expressed any opposition to the change in statute. and I am unclear why this issue has actually risen today. Simply requiring one of a ninemember Board speak on behalf of thousands of employees in everyones district here hardly seems to be unreasonable or undoable. H.R. 22 is a bill that we have heard many people on the floor say how many years it has been worked on. well over decades. I urge my colleagues to vote against this and other amendments under consideration today that do not provide for any real improvements in the underlying text of the bill that we have before us tonight.
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my friend for offering his amendment. I am unable to support it. but I understand the spirit in which he is giving it to try to make this a. better bill. This- is a carefully crafted bill in which Republicans and Democrats have come together to try to work through a lot of issues. and moving one part out really jeopardizes the total package. The gentleman quoted the minority leader. or the minority whip. as saying. This is a good bill and it should be passed this year. and he understood that. but why would a Republican Congress do it. A Republican Congress Would pass this bill because we do not want a 2cent rate increase next January. The only way we can forestall that rate increase is by passing this legislation. and to pass this legislation. we need to work together with Republicans and Democrats. That means we give on some issues and we take on others. The question was raised. well. we ought to have a taxpayer on the board. I think everybody who is on the board is a taxpayer. The fact of the matter is. there are four members of the board who are management. but they are not postal management. There are two postal management members of the board. and this would reserve one for the unions to pick. and by the way. there are diversity among the postal unions. That is a tough job to pick somebody because of competing interests over mail handlers versus letter carriers and the like. But this is good legislation. and I am afraid that this amendment. in my judgment. despite I think the best intentions of its author. will upset that delicate balance that we have created to this point. It is not something that is new to corporate America to have a member of labor sitting on corporate boards. It is actually done quite frequently. particularly in the airline industry and a number of other industries where this is fairly common at this point. And since the postal workers have a lot to gain or lose by this as well. we think their voice can be very constructive at the end of the day. So for those reasons and the fact that this particular provision has been in the bill since its introduction 11 years ago. and until this amendment was filed. I do not think any objections have been raised. I understand where the gentleman is coming from. but for those reasons. I would ask my colleagues to reject the Pence amendment and to support the final passage. Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I. rise to claim the time in opposition. and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California .
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are not bailing out the post office every 4 years. it is like every 35 years. since the last act. We did come out with some additional money because of anthrax and because of the added burdens that we put on the post office at that point. but the post office has to operate under its own budget. and right now. the only thing they can rely on is fate increases. and rate increases drive mail away into .other areas. which is why we are working this bill tonight. I appreciate the gentlemans amendment. but I think it is unnecessary. The Postal Service already has considerable authority to test and implement different methods of providing services to the public. Nothing in -the current law. I repeat. nothing in thd current law or in H.R. 22 prevents the Postal Service from employing contractors in providing mail service. The post office has a long history of doing so. starting with the Pony Express. For most of its history. the Postal Service has relied on dedicated contractors to manage small post offices. often in rural communities. Almost 8 percent of all of the post offices are operated under contract. not by postal employees. 8 percent. Also. for 160 years. the Postal Service has relied on private contractors for the transportation and delivery of mail. Star route carriers today continue to operate. transporting mail efficiently and effectively nationwide. even delivering the mail to over 2 million homes 6 days a week. In many rural communities. those served by both contract postal units and star route carriers. the Postal Services en*tire relationship with their customers is already handled by contractors. not employees. For these longstanding and successful postal contract arrangements. this amendment is at best unnecessary. At worst it adds a new layer of procedures that will place burdens on expanding these programs into newer areas. One puzzling aspect is its provision allowing the Postal Service to waive laws. rules and regulations. including sections of the criminal code. which I am not sure I understand. Maybe the gentleman on his time will explain. But the Service does not need this waiver to contract the provisions. In fact. it only serves to remove needed protections safeguarding the sanctity. privacy and security of the mail. Do customers really want their mail delivered by contractors to whom no laws apply? In short. the Postal Service has been conducting pilot tests of these ideas since the 19th century. I would say the evaluation phase is over. the results are in. they work. Let us not mess them up with a new. unnecessary. convbluted regulation. Both postmaster organizations oppose this. And so I would urge that we defeat this amendment. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman. let me just say this: On the $6 billion figure floating around. it is important to understand that the reason the Congressional Budget Office scores this as an increase is because they have contemplated and put into their figuring that there will be rate increases. Our legislation takes away those rate increases. so that is not coming into the Treasury. So if you do not have a rate increase. it scores. When you sit here and say it is going to cost the taxpayers. that means they do not have to go with a rateincrease. We are being penalized because we are not doing rate increases. and it scores against us. We need to understand that. And that is why this legislation is being passed. Mr. Chairman. I yield 12 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut .
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I would just note that the universal service obligation of the post office gives it a burden in requirements that some of the other facts and figures alluded to do not have to meet. Mr. Chairman. I would yield the remaining time to my colleague. the gentleman from Illinois .
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I urge opposition to this. First of all. the Postal Service is selfoperating. What it raises. it spends. The increased money that was added was because of the anthrax issue. It was a national security issue. This amendment is bad for the economy. We are talking about 8 percent of GDP now having at least a 2 percent increase. In fact. under this amendment. it would not just be a rate increase. this would be basically a rate shock to Americans. It would be far in excess of that. This hurts Americans competitiveness. it is bad for the economy. and I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Date: 2005-07-27
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. last Saturday July 23. 2005. was a dreadful day for the entire civilized world. The multiple bombings in the Egyptian city of Sharm elSheikh that killed dozens constituted the deadliest act of terrorism in Egypts history. I want to assure the victims of the attack. their families. and all Egyptian people that the House of Representatives and the American people stand with them during this time of loss. As we know all too well. terrorists remain committed to senseless killing of innocent people. Their evil must be defeated. That a suicide attacker would ram a pickup truck packed with 660 pounds of explosives into a hotel is just the most recent demonstration of the viciousness of these killers. Last weekends attack is not an isolated incident. A suicide bomber exploded a bomb in a Cairo market on April 7 this year. killing three. including one American. On April 30. two women fired several gunshots. into a tour bus in Cairo wounding seven people. Ana on July 7. Egypts Ambassador to Iraq. Dr. Ihab alSharif. was kidnapped and killed by a group associated with al Qaeda. The July 23 attack is a heartbreaking reminder of the human toll in the war on terror. but it will only serve to steel the resolve of America. Egypt. and our allies. The U.S. Government will continue its cooperation with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to track down the terrorists involved in these attacks. America and our allies do not distinguish between terrorist acts aimed at interrupting the IsraeliPalestinian appeals process. those attacking the operations of the new Iraqi government. or those that result in the murder of innocent sightseers in Sharm elSheikh. Mr. Speaker. as this legislation resolves all to do. I am proud to join President Bush in expressing the solidarity of the American people with the Egyptian people in the aftermath of the July 23 attacks. I strongly support House Resolution 384.
Date: 2005-07-27
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. every once in a while. a vote comes before us that is evidently more than important. and this is one such vote. This is an historic vote that we are taking today on a special relationship with the countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic. Those countries. their Presidents. their Parliaments. have taken a definitive step. they have resisted the totalitarian temptations. the destabilization efforts of the axis of Ortega and Chavez with his hundreds of millions of dollars that he is pouring into these countries and the entire region to destabilize them. They have resisted that access. and they have voted for a special relationship with the United States. Talk about pressure. I say to my colleagues. Mr. Speaker. the pressures that are genuine. that are extraordinary. are the ones that are felt by those countries. the countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic. to accept. to go forth with a totalitarian temptation. and they have rejected that. They have provided troops to help us in the war against terrorism in Iraq. What would we be saying. Mr. Speaker. if we voted against CAFTA today? "Thank You. Thank you for your help in Iraq. Thank you for progressing with democratic reforms. for establishing democracy-. Thank you. but no thanks. We do not want you to tie your histories. your destinies. your futures to -the United States. which is what you have decided to do." We have an obligation. Mr. Speaker. to say. yes. we are proud of our special relationship with our brother countries of this hemisphere. We recognize that you are our allies. you are our friends. You have stood with us in peace. you have stood with us in war. you have decided to tie your futures to us. and we say. welcome. That is what this vote is all about. Mr. Speaker. It is a critically important historic vote. Say "yes" to the rule and say "yes" to this agreement. Say "yes" to CAFTA.
Date: 2005-07-28
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. by direction of the Committee on Rules. I call up House Resolution 396 and ask for its immediate consideration.
Date: 2005-07-28
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. for the purpose of debate only. I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California . pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution. all time yielded is for the pulpose of debate only.
Date: 2005-07-28
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I have no further requests for time. I yield back the balance of my time. and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.
Date: 2005-07-28
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 6. the Energy Policy Act. One of the provisions in this bill is something Ive been working on for years and clarifies the depreciation period for natural gas gathering lines is appropriately 7 years. I appreciate Chairman THOMASS work on this provision for the years he has been the Chairman of the committee. Further. I am glad to see that the conferees on the tax title of the bill were able to reach a balance between incentives for production of oil and gas and other energy production with energy efficiency incentives and conservation incentives. I support this bill and commend the conferees on their hard work.