macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

and his office for their work on this as well. I believe that this is relatively simple. I think that all of us in this country have a right to know who is putting forth ads for or against candidates as the campaigns run on. We do that as elected officials. The political parties do that. We also file all those who contribute money to us above certain amounts. and that I believe also should be done. This act that we are trying to pass basically is one of transparency. You can call it DISCLOSE. whatever you wish. but it basically indicates that foreign corporations cannot spend dollars in U.S. elections. and Federal contractors cannot get involved. But those who can. the corporations. unions. notforprofits. must disclose who is paying for it in terms of the CEO coming forward and major contributors being posted so that people know who is paying for it. It does not limit what they can say. I do not believe its in any way a violation of the First Amendment as has been stated here on repeated occasions. I will be the first to tell you I do not like the managers amendment that was in the rule with respect to the exemptions for certain entitiesnot because theres anything wrong with the entitiesbut my judgment is this should be applicable to everybody who would fall into these categories. Perhaps that will be fixed in the Senate. But the bottom line is. this is a disclosure act so that the people of this country will know who is advertising. Weve all been subjected to it. Weve all seen these ads where you wonder just who is running that ad. and now well have a pretty good idea. I hope our body will support it.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the chairman for yielding. I just want to emphasize again. as Justice Stevens pointed out in his dissent. that the Supreme Court decision did open the door to foreigncontrolled corporations spending money directly in U.S. elections. If you have a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation thats controlled by that corporation. when the Supreme Court essentially said all corporations could spend money directly in U.S. elections. they opened the door very clearly to that. And its an area where its also clear Congress can move to legislate. Number two. its no surprise that you have lots of organizations on the right and the leftlove what they stand for or hate what they stand forthat are opposing this bill because they dont want voters in many instances to know who is funding their ads. Thats not a surprise at all. Thats why those organizations who are devoted solely to clean campaign elections. like the League of Women Voters and Common Cause. are for this bill while all the others are against it. Let me say something with respect to unions. There is no such thing as a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign union. So this is a red herring issue. Second. under U.S. law. we have never defined collective bargaining agreements as Federal contracts like those contracts that go to the corporations themselves. Number three. I draw to the attention of the body a statement that was made by Trevor Potter. President of the Campaign Legal Center. who was the Republican Commissioner on the FEC. the Federal Election Commission. from 1991 to 1995. who said. "This bill requires funding disclosure for all election advertisingunion and corporate." and goes on to say. "Based on the legislative languages equality of treatment. claims of union favoritism seem to be unsupported efforts to discredit the bill and stave off its primary goal: disclosure of those underwriting the massive independent expenditure campaigns that are coming to dominate our elections." Thats the Republican commissioner.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. Representative KINGs amendment would. as he has indicated. eliminate all limitations on Federal election campaign contributions. corporations and unions. Individuals could donate unlimited amounts of money to candidates. political parties. and committees. I think this is a fairly cynical amendment designed to undermine all support for additional disclosure and reasonable regulation. Since the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 was first challenged. the Supreme Court has always upheld reasonable contribution limits to candidates and political parties. and they did so as a reasonable means to prevent corruption. Even the Citizens United decision itself did not question the Federal Election Campaign Acts limits on direct contributions to candidates. and they reaffirmed that the Court was concerned that large contributions could be given to secure a political quid pro quo. I quote the Court decision where they refer favorably to the Buckley court: "Nevertheless. sustained limits on direct contributions in order to ensure against the reality or appearance of corruption." That case did not extend the rationale to independent expenditures. and the Court didnt do so in Citizens United. But it did quote the Buckley court favorably on the limitation of expenditures when it came to candidates or political parties. Money has a corrosive effect on the electoral process. and eliminating campaign limits would start a political arms war. Candidates have to raise millions of dollars to run competitive campaigns. and if Mr. KINGs amendment passes. candidates are going to turn to wealthy donors. special interests. corporations to get their money. and the voices of average Americans will not be heard. If this amendment is passed. the voices of the American people will be drowned out by wealthy corporations and other interest groups. This isnt what we should do. Its not what the Court suggested we do. And I would urge that we oppose the King amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I would like to note. going back again to the Court decision. that although the Citizens United case did not attackit was not about the constraint on individual contributions to candidatesthe Court did. as I mentioned to you earlier and quoted. reference favorably the Buckley court. sustaining the constitutionality of those constraints. Its worth noting that the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 has been the law for nearly 40 years. Its 39 years. Its helped clean up the role of money in politics. Its been improved over the years. I mentioned earlier under general debate the case of how much is spent in any given year. and I used the example 2008. the last big election. where 435 Members of Congress spent about $840 million. Thats the equivalent of 1 percent of the profits of ExxonMobil for 1 year. What Mr. KINGs amendment would allow would be for an oil corporation Member of Congress to go to the oil corporation and say. Write me a check thats half a percent of your profit. and that would be legal. Thats not what we want in America. We dont want corporations pouring money into individual campaigns. disclosed or not. Thats going to drown out the voices of regular Americans. Its not what the law permits today. The Court decision does not ask us to change the law. and I would urge that we defeat Mr. KINGS amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I urge opposition to the amendment. From the gentlemans comments. he favors disclosure. I hope. therefore. he votes for the DISCLOSE Act. But we didnt need to open the door to unlimited funds by corporations to candidates. We know it will be sleazy. In order to get disclosure. vote "no" on the King amendment and "yes" on the DISCLOSE Act. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa .
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Chairman BRADY. and their staff. I also want to thank Mr. PERRIELLO and Mr. GRAYSON for working with me on this important amendment. One of the most troubling aspects of the Citizens United decision was the opening of a loophole that could allow multinational corporations with significant foreign ownership to spend prolifically in American elections. Who in Gods name would want to have foreign governments involved investing in our elections? The DISCLOSE Act. as written. attempts to limit the ability of foreign nationals to launder their cash through these domestic corporations by imposing limitations on foreign ownership. foreign membership on corporate boards. and executive power. This amendment would strengthen this provision in two important ways. My amendment lowers the allowable foreign ownership percentage from 20 percent to 5 percent when the foreign owner is a foreign government. foreign government official. or foreign governmentcontrolled company like a sovereign wealth fund. I believe it is important to draw this distinction between the average foreign citizen and foreign governments who could seek to exploit this loophole to influence our elections based on the policies of their governments and not the citizens of our country. The second provision of my amendment would close a potential loophole that could allow a majority foreignowned corporation to continue to make political expenditures so long as no single shareholder owns more than 20 percent of the company. My amendment would prohibit expenditures by corporations who have a majority of their shares owned by foreign nationals even if no single shareholder meets the 20 percent threshold. I believe this is an important amendment. These commonsense provisions will ensure strong protections for our elections from unprecedented foreign influence and spending. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: PATRICK J. MURPHY (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Penn

sylvania. Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: In section 318(e) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. as proposed to be added by section 214(b)(2) of the bill. strike paragraphs (2) and (3) and insert the following:
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: PATRICK J. MURPHY (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Penn

sylvania. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. I am happy that we are addressing campaign finance reform in this session of Congress by taking up the DISCLOSE Act today. This bill goes a long way toward increasing transparency in campaign spending by forcing individuals and organizations to stand by their television and radio ads that they fund. I would like to thank my colleagues
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: PATRICK J. MURPHY (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Penn

sylvania. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman. first. your location in your campaign ad takes less than 2 seconds. In that time. voters get valuable information about any special interests which are trying to influence their votes. Second. if the ad is short and if timing is an issue. funders may be able to get a hardship exemption which makes sure that there is always time for the substantive message in their ads. Mr. Chairman. quite simply. a vote to oppose the Murphy amendment will be a vote to keep your constituents in the dark about the sources of their campaign spending. Campaign ads can now be funded from unlimited corporate sources. At the very least. we must give people the facts that they need about these ads and about the special interests that are sometimes behind them. This amendment is a critical edition to the DISCLOSE Act because it does exactly thatit provides people with a key piece of information about the source of the ad. Knowing whether the ads are promoting an interest in the voters own district or State will allow voters to better evaluate those ads and make informed decisions when they go to the polling place. The more information thats available. the more transparent and fair all elections will be. and I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. PAT-
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: PATRICK J. MURPHY (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Penn

sylvania. Mr. Chairman. I demand a recorded vote. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII. further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be postponed.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the chair of the full Energy and Commerce Committee for yielding. To my Republican colleagues. we make history on the floor of the House. and we did when we passed the health care bill. but you cant rewrite it. The House passed a bill. H.R. 3961. that only had one Member from the Republican Party who voted for that bill that was the permanent fix for this doctor situation so that our doctors wouldnt be cut 21 percent as of last week. One vote. and it was my colleague from Texas. Dr. BURGESS. Thats why this is so important today. We wish we could pass a better bill and a longterm fix. but we cant get it through the United States Senate. so were going to November. You had a chance to step up and do it. but you didnt do it. We passed that bill with only one Republican vote. This legislation is so important because Medicare is so important. Our seniors need to be able to go to a doctor. and yet were seeing doctors say they cant afford to treat them anymore because we didnt do the permanent fix. Thats why this bill is so important today. to get us through November. Hopefully we will be able to then do a permanent fix so doctors will be able to see our senior citizens. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act. This legislation will prevent a 21percent cut in Medicare physician payment reimbursements through November 30. and makes the socalled doc fix retroactive to June 1. when a previous stop gap measure expired. While Congress enacted stopgap measures for rate cuts scheduled for several months. yesterday CMS began mailing reimbursement checks to physicians who accept Medicare with the 21percent reduction in their reimbursement. This legislation before us today is another temporary fix and amends the legislation we sent to the Senate. which would be a permanent fix to the Medicare physician payment system. but we need to ensure that our seniors will continue to have access to their physicians and doctors will continue to accept Medicare. It is clear that this current physician payment system contains some inherent flaws that must be addressed to ensure the long term viability of Medicare and access to beneficiaries. My hometown of Houston contains some of the worlds best medical facilities. where the scope of care is unmatched. Yet. I meet physicians working in every medical specialty who say that this current Medicare physician payment system threatens our Medicare beneficiaries access to the health care that they provide. I support the legislation today to ensure our physicians will not receive a 21percent cut in their Medicare reimbursement rates. but in November we will need to revisit this issue and enact a permanent fix to the physician payment system.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of legislation to retroactively reverse a 21 percent payment cut for doctors in Medicare and TRICARE and update the flawed Medicare physician payment formula. Rather than the 21 percent payment cut. physicians will see a 2.2 percent update in their payment rates through November. 30. 2010. Though I would prefer a permanent. longterm solution to this problem. this legislation is necessary so that Medicare beneficiaries can continue to see their doctor of choice and access the care they need. The uncertainty of payments is causing difficulties for physicians who provide services under Medicare because their practices cannot adequately plan for the expenses they incur for treating Medicare beneficiaries. Congress needs to fix this problem in a permanent manner. The House has passed legislation this Congress that would have done exactly that. Unfortunately. it was blocked in the Senate. Mr. Speaker. while I urge my colleagues to support this bill before us. I also urge all my colleagues in both the House and Senate to recommit themselves to passing legislation that will permanently fix Medicare payments to physicians.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of provisions contained in H.R. 3962. which will temporarily fix the Sustainable Growth Rateor SGRformula. This legislation will undo the twentyone percent cut in Medicare reimbursements to physicians that took place on June 1st. Without prompt action. these cuts will do serious harm to physicians and patients alike. With a 21 percent cut. payments to physicians would be well below their overhead costs and could jeopardize continued access for Medicare beneficiaries to their physicians. We have a duty to our retirees to be there for them when they are in need. so I fully and enthusiastically support the provisions that restore Medicare reimbursement rates. However. I want to register my profound concern over a provision in H.R. 3962 that utilizes a new application of whats known as the "72hour rule" as an offset for the SGR temporary fix. This provision dictates how a hospital must bundle certain Medicare payments for reimbursement. My home state of Florida was among the states included in the first round of the Recovery Audit Contractors Program. overseeing the 72hour rule. Some Florida hospitals that have undergone audits had either inadvertently overbilled or underbilled. Hospitals that inadvertently overbilled are obligated to repay the appropriate amount. and have already done so. But. hospitals that inadvertently underbilled. would be immediately precluded. if this passes. from resubmitting claims in compliance with existing regulations to recoup underpayments. It is my understanding that many hospitals are still reviewing a large number of possible underpayments for submittal. If they are precluded from resubmitting claims because of changes in this legislation. Florida hospitals could face $225 million in losses. This retroactive application constitutes changing the rules of the game after the services were provided. and is simply not fair to providers. We owe it to both our physicians and our hospitals to treat them fairly when they care for our seniors under Medicare. Assuming this legislation becomes law. I strongly encourage the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to administer this new application of the 72hour rule in the most equitable manner possible and limit the adverse impacts on hospitals to the greatest extent possible.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. we have had a good week. and I am very grateful we had the opportunity today to say to the doctors of America that we are committed to your practice and your medicine and your caring for our seniors. In addition. we were able to say to Iran. which has called for the extinguishing of Israel. has caused the existence of Camp Ashraf in Iraq. and literally has tried to destroy dissidents and resisters for democracy. that we will not tolerate an Iran that is nucleararmed. And so I am glad that we passed the Iran Sanctions Act. But we have more to do. And I am grateful that the President saw fit to change command in Afghanistan. It is unfortunate that the commands of the commander in chief were not respected. but we know that this is a civilian government and the military respects the civilian leadership. That must be. But now we must turn to establishing a pathway out of Afghanistan. We must go after the terrorists that threaten us. but we must recognize a smart power. political power. diplomatic power. empowering the people. providing for education is the way to solve the Afghanistan problem. not 30.000 soldiers that are engaged in war.
Date: 2010-06-29
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Madam Speaker. we continue to see a growing sign of economic recovery resulting from the economic policies of the Democratic Congress and the Obama administration responding to the Bush recession and the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. More must be done to create jobs and save jobs. but the latest signs of recovery include: Industrial production has increased a cumulative 8.1 percent during the last 11 months. the largest 11month gain since 1997. Total industrial production rose 1.2 percent in May. The increase. slightly above market expectations. was led by a strong .9 percent growth in manufacturing output. Industrial production has grown at a rate of 7.4 percent annually for this past quarter. on the heels of 7.6 percent annualized growth in the first quarter. Madam Speaker. we are on our way in the right direction.
Date: 2010-06-29
Speaker: AL GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Madam Speaker. we must extend the emergency unemployment benefits. Why? Because the program is structured to assist those who are looking for work. If you are not looking for work. you dont get the extension of benefits. Why? Because 1.7 million people will lose their emergency benefits in 4 days if we do not act now. Over 100.000 will lose their benefits in the State of Texas in 4 days if we do not act now. Why? Because. for every dollar that we spend on unemployment benefitsemergency benefits. I might addwe turn over $1.63 in economic activity. Finally. we must do it because. but for the grace of God. there go I and because Dr. King was right. Life is an inescapable network of mutuality. tied to a single garment of destiny. What impacts one directly impacts all indirectly. It has an impact on all of us. We benefit when we spend the money.
Date: 2010-06-29
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Madam Speaker. I was listening to the tribute to Senator BYRD yesterday on the floor of the Senate. the other body. and I was struck by one comment on his integrity. It was that if Senator BYRD gave you his word you could go to the bank on it. I rise today to support this legislation because I want the American people to know that this Congress who has taken their vote really needs to stand by its word. That word is to be there for America during a rainy day. This unemployment insurance extension is not a handout. its a hand up. Democrats have voted to create thousands of jobs in America but it is not enough. All the economists will tell you that Americans are not at work because they dont want to work. They are not at work because jobs have not been created. and one of the downfalls of the bailout. for those of us who did vote against it but because of the outpouring of our own constituents who asked us to vote "yes." we voted "yes" for small businesses and businesses in general to create jobs. but if the toobigtofail banks refuse to give them loans to create jobs then we are stuck with no job creation at the level we would like. We need to be able to provide for those who need us now. provide for those without jobs or losing jobs. and get off this high horse of breaking your word to the American people.