macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2010-06-23
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

I yield myself the balance of my time. As I said. owning a home is a fundamental part of the American Dream. and I have been honored to introduce this resolution. I think. for the past 12 years. It is a fundamental part. but that doesnt mean that everybody necessarily is in a position to own a home at a given time. And thats something people need to strive for in their lives and look for in the future. And if you look at the situationand my colleague was talking about FHAFHA. Freddie. and Fannie are providing about 92 percent of all the loans in this country. If it were not for that. people in this country could not buy or sell a home basically because there is not liquidity in the marketplace to deal with it other than the GSEs. But at the same time. we need to understand that underwriting standards for FHA. Freddie. and Fannie need to be very solid. thereby not putting any of the agencies or the taxpayers at risk. I think FHA has done a good job recently increasing their underwriting standards. requiring people to be in a better position to be able to repay their mortgages. and this is essential. The National Association of Realtors is strongly behind this resolution. Although this is a statement that Congress is making. it doesnt require any action. its a significant statement. Its being made on behalf of the American people who believe they want to own a home. they have a right to own a home. and if they are in a position to do that. we are encouraging that. The Realtors say that 51/2 million taxpayers depend on the NFIP to protect them from flooding. We are going to deal with that in the next bill. They also came and supported the resolution we are putting before us today. So there are two resolutions in a row that are very important to home ownership in this debate today. The one we have before us is the concept that people should have a right to own a home. With that. I yield back the balance of my time. and I ask for an "aye" vote on this resolution.
Date: 2010-06-23
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak on another temporary shortterm extension of the National Flood Insurance Program. NFIP. which expired more than 3 weeks ago on May 31. 2010. This is the third time this year that the flood insurance program has expired. causing disruption in the housing market in cases where individuals are trying to purchase a home located in a floodplain which requires them to buy flood insurance to close on a federally backed mortgage. It is unfortunate that the fate of the National Flood Insurance Program has to be authorized on a temporary basis because of other unrelated issues. The result has created uncertainty and instability in the market at a time when this country can least afford it. Immediate action is needed to support homeowners and small businesses owners who depend on flood insurance for an important measure of financial security. especially during the June to November storm season. This bill provides for a temporary extension through the end of the current fiscal year. September 30. 2010. The bill would also make the reauthorization retroactive to May 31. 2010. and offset the cost by reducing the NFIPs borrowing authority by $50 million from $20.775 billion to $20.725 billion. As a result. according to consultations with CBO. this bill would have no net impact on the Federal budget. Congress also needs to move forward this year with serious longterm reforms of the flood insurance program.
Date: 2010-06-23
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

I yield myself the balance of my time. It is very unfortunate that the fate of the National Flood Insurance Program has to be authorized on a temporary basis because of unrelated issues. What the marketplace needs today is certainty and stability. and we should do whatever we can to create that. I ask for an "aye" vote.
Date: 2010-06-23
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of keeping promises to the American people. To speak plainly about it. I do not support the federal governments growing role in the private sector. But for reasons known to all of my colleagues. the federal government has. for some time. been the primary provider of flood insurance to Americas homeowners. Because of Congress inaction. that insurance is no longer available. Simply put. as a matter of principle and responsible public policy. when the government makes commitments to the American people. and families and businesses come to rely on the fulfillment of those commitments. it is flat out wrong to fail to live up to them. That is where we are right now. Mr. Speaker. the Democrats have control over every lever of government and your majorities in both chambers are significant. So to allow the National Flood Insurance Program. the "SGR". the state sales tax deduction. and others to expire demonstrates a complete lack of responsibility and an inability to govern. This is hurting my constituents. My district. like many in Florida. has been pummeled by the housing crisis. And while the President may believe that press conferences touting his foreclosure initiatives are sufficient to addressing the problem. my constituents know that the only thing that will turn their situation around is a recovery in demand. I am sure that Members on both sides of the aisle can understand my frustration when I get calls from realtors in my district explaining that three of their clients cant close on houses because the Flood Insurance program has lapsed. There is nothing they can do about it and they want answers. They want to know when the government is going to get the situation fixed. And frankly. I dont know what to tell them. To me. the idea that a singleparty government cant pass mustpass legislation is incomprehensible. So I would like to thank the gentlelady from California. Ms. WATERS. for stepping up to the plate and bringing this legislation to the floor. And while I support the bill and will be the first of my colleagues to vote for it. my constituents also want assurances from the Speaker and Majority Leader that this isnt just "pat ourselves on the back" legislationthat it isnt just "pass it to say we did" legislation. My constituents want real results and that means actually getting the Flood Insurance program. the tax cuts. and other commitments that this government have made extended quickly. It is simply the right thing to do.
Date: 2010-06-23
Speaker: MARIO DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. I thank the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee from my Florida delegation. Congresswoman ILEANA RosLEHTINEN. for yielding. I rise to strongly support this important resolution. This past Sunday. as we have just heard. 20 million of Colombias citizens turned out to the polls and elected former Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos as President with a resounding 69 percent of the vote. And yet the true champion and the true winners of this presidential election were who? The Colombian people and democracy as a whole were the winners and. yes. the United States of America. because the Colombian people not only elected someone who I know will lead them with brilliance. but also a person who understands the special ties between Colombia and the United States of America. Madam Speaker. words are important. but so are actions. It is now also timeyes. we have to pass this important resolution. but we also have to bring forward to this House the free trade deal with Colombia that has been lingering and just waiting for congressional action. Colombia is a strong ally. theyve done everything right. The people have once again spokenwith huge numbersand supported a person who again has been pushing for the free trade deal just like his predecessor. the current President of Colombia. President Uribe. who again has demonstrated great leadership. Its time that we bring up the free trade deal. its time that we passed the free trade deal. its time that not only do we shower Colombia with kind words. but that we show with our action. this Congress. that we do care for democracy. that we understand that we have to support our allies. none more important than Colombia. Its time to pass the free trade deal with Colombia. and in the meantime. I urge your support of this important resolution.
Date: 2010-06-23
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Bob Mayer is south Floridas most tenured television newscaster. He has logged more hours both in the field and at the anchor desk than any other south Florida television journalist. Bob joined WTVJ News in June of 1969. Over the years. he has held numerous positions at TVJ. such as investigative and consumer reporter. crime reporter. business reporter. general assignment reporter. and talk show cohost. In addition. he served as anchor of TVJs early evening newscasts. weekend newscasts. and midday morning newscasts. Bob has been coanchoring the NBC 6 morning show "Today in South Florida" since 1990. He is an extraordinary journalist. Bob Mayer retires this week from NBC 6. and our entire community will miss his professionalism and objectivity dearly. Congratulations for a job well done. Bob. The best to you and your family.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

A recent New York Times poll indicates 54 percent of the public believe the President does not have a clear plan for creating jobs. Clearly. the failed $1 trillion stimulus plan created to keep unemployment below 8 percent shows the Presidents inability to lead. The dismal numbers come as the Democrats neglected to produce a budget and the majority leader announced the Democrats will raise taxes to pay for more government spending. I say: Cut government spending so you dont have to raise taxes. While they should be focused on creating jobs. the Democrats have proven the only thing they can do well is tax and spend. Heres a novel idea that the American people know from personal experience: Stop spending money you dont have.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: TIM MURPHY (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Pennsylvania

Madam Speaker. I rise today to honor two sons of southwestern Pennsylvania who gave their lives to their country. While on patrol in Afghanistan. Sergeant First Class Robert Fike and Staff Sergeant Bryan Hoover were killed by a suicide bomber. They became the 35th and 36th members of the Pennsylvania National Guard to be killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sergeant Fike was described as "one of those guys you just liked instantly." He graduated in 1989 from PennTrafford High School. joined the National Guard in 1993. and served in Panama. Italy. Saudi Arabia. and Iraq. His experience in military as well as a State prison guard made him an excellent leader of the younger troops. It was said of him that the guys respected everything he said. They trusted and liked him. Staff Sergeant Hoover graduated from Elizabeth Forward High School in 2000. where he was a standout athlete in track. football. and wrestling. He enlisted in the Marines and served in Iraq and then served in the Army Reserves before joining the National Guard. Back home. Bryan Hoover was an assistant track and cross country coach at Elizabeth Forward High School. He also volunteered to coach lowincome children at the YMCA. While he is no longer with us. Bryan left a mark on his students. One described him as an "inspirational coach." These two guardsmen were friends. having served together with the 28th Military Police Company in Iraq in 2007 and 2008. It was also their shared commitment to community and country that led them to join the military. where together they protected the reconstruction teams. building schools and infrastructure for the people of Afghanistan. Hundreds gathered to pay their respects this past week for Sergeant Fike and Staff Sergeant Hoover as they were laid to rest. As we mourn with these families. we know there are two more heroes keeping watch over us from above. On behalf of a grateful Nation. we thank them for their service and sacrifice. May God bless their families and the country they loved.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. in a few minutes. were going to start talking about a rule and then go into the substance of a bill called the DISCLOSE Act. The DISCLOSE Act supposedly talks merely about disclosure of political speech. but what it really does is affect the First Amendment to the Constitution which says. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. It does not say. Congress will pass laws which allow some people to speak but not others. and yet thats what the bill does thats being brought to us. If you happen to be a big organization. a large special interest with a lot of money and have been around a long time. you are exempt from the disclosure requirements. But if you happen to be somebody like. oh. the tea party or a smaller group or you dont have all the money or you havent been around for 10 years. you have the imposition of the burden of disclosure which. in some cases. will make it impossible for you to exercise free speech. You know. the First Amendment talks about speech. My friends on the other side of the aisle love to talk about how it protects. oh. nude dancing or something like that. How about talking about political speech.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. If you didnt win the lottery. youre left out. This is an affront to the Constitution. This is an affront to the proceedings of this House. and just because someone says it is doesnt make it so. This is a DISCLOSE Act that was designed in secret. giving unions and interests special exemptions. If you happen to be on the lucky side of the draw. you may like it. but you ought to read it because this is a destruction of the First Amendment in the name of partisanship.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Speaker. I am sure it is not intentional. but falsehoods are being spread on this floor. There is no poll that shows the American people support the DISCLOSE Act. It would be amazing if they did since we didnt get the last version of it until 2 hours before we went to the Rules Committee yesterday. The poll they are referring to took place back in February or March. which was before they had their backroom deals coming up with this particular bill. We now have 438 organizations which oppose this. Among them are the American Civil Liberties Union. the National Right to Life Committee. and the Sierra Club. Why would those people be getting together to oppose this bill? Because they believe in the First Amendment. and they understand that the First Amendment says all should be treated the same. That is not the cornerstone of this bill. They are specifically not treated the same. The bigger you are. the stronger you are. the less disclosure you have. The smaller you are. the newer you are. the more disclosure that is required. They even have put something in this bill that will make it impossible for certain ads to play on television. They have increased the number of names that have to appear. such that. in some cases. it will take 17 seconds to say all of those names and all of those organizations. There are things known as 15 second ads now. I guess you have minus time on TV. They say that unions have to be exempt. but corporations have to be affected. Now. remember. corporations are not just for profit. They keep talking about oil companies. They forget about the National Right to Life. They forget about all of these other organizations that actually have a corporate structure. Most political organizations do. Thats what we are talking about.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Then they say. Well. we dont want to be controlled by foreign entities. We offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to cover that. It was defeated on a partyline vote by the majority party. So. please. lets at least be honest. If youre going to disclose. disclose your motivations. Disclose the words in here. Disclose the deals that youve made. Disclose who has won the auction for their piece of the First Amendment.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Im shocked that my friend from the other side of the aisle would criticize the Presidents relationship with BP in terms of the massive contributions that he received while he was running for office. I dont think that ought to be part of this debate. But you ask about treatment. I have here just an example of one. two. three. four. five sections of the bill in which theres a specific exemption given to unions versus corporations. That is the kind of favored versus disfavored status created by the government that is. on its face. unconstitutional. People ought to understand that when you start making these distinctions. you are creating an unconstitutional act. because we do not want government saying that certain groups are okay and certain groups are not okay. that certain language is okay and other language is not okay. depending on who happens to be in office. This is an attack on the First Amendment. And here you have one. two. three. four. five sections of the bill made in order.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. At this time. Mr. Chairman. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi . a valued member of our committee.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas . the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. there has been a discussion about the different groups that support this bill. Interestingly enough. as debate started on the rule today. we have received word from 18 more groups that they oppose this bill. Now were up to 456 groups that oppose this bill officially. including the American Civil Liberties Union. National Right to Life. and the Sierra Club. Let me quote. if I might. from the ACLUs letter that is dated June 17. 2010. because much has been made on the other side of the aisle of groups that support this. but yet why not talk about groups that are known for protecting the First Amendment. The ACLU says in their letter: "To the extent that restrictions on free speech might be tolerated at all. it is essential that they refrain from discriminating based on the identity of the speaker." And theyre referring specifically to this bill.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I would extend 1 minute of my time to the gentleman from Michigan. who I understand needs more time.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. at this time. it is my distinct honor to yield 1 minute to the distinguished leader of the Republicans here in the House. the gentleman from Ohio .
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. ACKERMANS amendment is an interesting amendment because. among other things. it was allowed to be considered on this floor. while any amendment offered by any Republican Member on the committee of jurisdiction was disallowed. We had. on our side. several amendments which would make it clear that the disclosure requirements in this bill are required equally of unions as of corporations. As I listened carefully to Mr. ACKERMANS statement concerning his amendment. I noticed he referred only to corporations and to the obligation of corporations to make reports to their shareholders. There was not a single mention of the responsibility of unions to inform their members of how they spend their money in a political way in a "clear and conspicuous" manner. He said his amendment is fairly straightforward. almost as if its unnecessary or so obvious. And yet that amendment was allowed to be in order. but one that would make it clear that his "clear and conspicuous" requirement and every other requirement of disclosure contained in this law which would affect corporations of all typesand remember. Im talking about not just forprofit corporations but corporations of any typewould equally apply to the unions was not allowed. And so the gentleman has made the case that we have been making all along: This bill does not. in fact. treat unions the same as it does other organizations. many of whom. as I say. have a corporate structure but they would not be identified by the average person as a corporation. Theyd be identified as an advocacy organization. And so. once again. we see in this amendment an attempt to unbalance the playing field by ensuring that a particular obligation that may be an appropriate obligation with respect to corporations is not placed on unions. once again. And. for that reason. I would have to oppose the gentleman s amendment. But we cant have time to discuss whether unions ought to be dealt with. The argument that the potential corruption is there with contractors would certainly be there with representatives of union member public employees. Im not saying theyre corrupt. What I am saying is the legal analysis is the same. I dont think my friends on the other side of the aisle would suggest that every corporation is corrupt. but it is because of the possibilities of corruption that were allowed. under the Supreme Courts interpretation of the First Amendment. to have these kinds of disclosure requirements. All Im saying is. once again. the gentlemans amendment proves the point weve been trying to make on the floor. This bill does not fairly treat everybody. There are those that are favored by the majority and theres the rest of the world. Those favored by the majority get special treatment. Those not favored by the majority do not get that special treatment. It will render this bill unconstitutional. as it should. With that. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I would just point out that 441(b) is the section that prohibits corporate contributions. So the gentlemans amendment does not do what the gentlelady from California said. which would allow corporations to give contributions.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I rise to claim the time in opposition. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.