macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2006-04-05
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise today supporting H. Res. 541. legislation honoring the 2005 winners of the Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry. The Nobel Prize represents the pinnacle of achievement in any academic area. The 2005 Prize in Physics was awarded to three scientists in the field of optics. Dr. Roy Glauber was awarded half of the Prize for his theoretical description of the behavior of light particles. Drs. John Hall and Theodor Haensch share the other half of the Physics Prize for their development of laserbased precision spectroscopy. The work has enabled the determination of the color of the light of atoms and molecules with great precision. The 2005 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was shared by Drs. Yves Chauvin. Richard Schrock and Robert Grubbs for their work in the area of metathesis. Metathesis is important to the chemical industry. mainly in the development of medicines and of certain types of plastic materials. The Nobel- Laureates work has enabled chemical synthesis to be simpler. more efficient. and more environmentally friendly. Mr. Speaker. I congratulate the recipients of the Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry -and urge my colleagues to support H. Res.
Date: 2006-04-05
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Do you know what else we want as Democrats? We just want the Congress to do what American families all across this country do. They only pay for what they have money to pay for. They pay as they go. Now. there are a lot of families. unfortunately in this country that get themselves into trouble. They run up debt on their credit cards. They end up spending a lifetime hand wringing over how much debt they have because they have paid for luxuries on credit that they didnt have revenue in their household coMing in to cover. That is what we are doing here. And there is no end in sight.
Date: 2006-04-05
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Be- New York Times on January 29 of this cause I wanb to illuminate what you year. Corporate wealth share rises for just said because actually. we put our top income Americans. In 2003. and this action where our words are. because it is the most recent data. the top 1 peris not just that we said that we should cent of households owned 571/2 percent drop those tax cuts by just a little bit of corporate wealth in this country. and make sure wecould fund port secu- That was up from 53.4 percent the year rity. Here is the third party validation before. This top gtoup. this 1 percent. that we always talk about. in 1991 had 38.7 percent. In other words. On June 18. 2004. there was an amend- this 1 percent is doing so well that they ment by Representative DAVE OBEY. are leaving everybody behind. The top who is the ranking member on the.Ap- 1 percent is gaining so much money. propriations Committee that Mr. 9nd corporate wealth in this Nation ROTHMAN sits on. He offered an amend- that the other 99 percent have experi- ment to increase port and container se- enced a decline in their share of the curity by $400 million. Republicans re- "wealth of America. fused to allow consideration of that Mr. ROTHMAN. Will the gentleman amendment. yield? October 7. 2004 an amendment offered Mr. DELAHUNT. Sure. by Representatives OBEY and SABO and Mr. ROTHMAN. You know. some peoSenator BYRD that would have in- ple will say. oh. there the Democrats go again. class warfare. There they go again. class warfare. Nonsense. We love rich people. We love pQor people. We love middle class people. We love Americans. This is about the choices that America is going to .make with their tax dollars. What should we do with the tax dollars that people send to Washington? Should we give them. by the way. the recession is over. We are in the start of the fourth year of the war in Iraq. We are still paying for Katrina and Hurricane Rita. - With all of these problems and the recession over 3 years ago. is this the time not only to continue these tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest people making over $400.000 a year. millipns of dollars a year? Or should we. in fact. pay off .some of the debt. spend down the deficit. pay for college for kids.
Date: 2006-04-05
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

It is important to note that this is a matter of priorities. What is sad. and I am the least senior among the five of us. and what I have found the most sad since joining the Congress and joining you all last year. is how far astray we have come from when President Clinton was in office. When President Clinton was in office and I was in my state legislature in Florida. what I watched Congress debate was what we were going to spend the surplus on. Were we going to use the surplus that we had at that time to shore up Social Security? Were we going to shore up Medicare? We didnt have a deficit. We had a surplus. And Mr. MEEK. I think it would be a good idea for you to get back to really describing the.scope of the foreign debt that we have here. because we got you mid map. But we really need to make sure that people understand the stark contrast between what we were able to debate during the Clinton administration and what we are forced to debate now. So I yield to the gentleman.
Date: 2006-04-05
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

And that is because we did not come here to just sit idly by and not express the outrage that our constituents communicate to us when we go home. The chart that you had up there a minute ago. Mr. RYAN. the one with the blue background that says "Borrow and spend Republican Congress." that really says it all because what Mr. ROTHMAN said earlier is that our critics. Democratic critics. like to throw around that Democrats are supportive of class warfare. and I am not going to repeat their message. I am going to make sure that.we get across like we do every single night here in -the 30Something Working Group that wliat is going on here in Washington is a borrow and spend Republican Congress. And it is not true just because we are here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives saying it is true. We have thirdparty validators that say it is true. USA Today on Monday. April 3. 2006. headline: "Growth in Federal Spending Unchecked." The borrow and spend Republican Congress. A USA Today editorial on February 21 of this year. the title of it wts "Whos Spending Big Now? The party of small govern-. ment." "Tax cuts. they say. force hard decisions and restrain reckless spending. The last time we looked. though. Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House. They are the spenders. In fact. since they took control in 2001. they have increased spending by an average of nearly 7.5 percent a year. more than double the rate in the last 5 years of Clintonera budgets." Now. what we talk about on this floor every night is the difference between words and actions. They can say that they are the party of small government and more personal Iesponsibility and the claptrap that they like to throw around that are just words.
Date: 2006-04-05
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

What you are pointing out is there are consequences to the fiscal recklessness. That is what I have observed for the last 15 months. It is just fiscal recklessness. The most glaring consequence is right here in front of us with what Mr. RYAN talked about that happened in a town in his district. Twelve hundred jobs gone. Seven point two million Americans today remain unemployed with an additional 4.2 million who want a job but who are not counted among the unemployed. Since this President took office. the econoiny has posted only 15 months of job gains that have 150.000 or more. That is just the number of jobs that we need to keep up with population growth. But the most telling. which is the one that is evidenced by what happened in the town in your district. Mr. RYAN. is that there are now 1.3 million more unemployed private sector workers than in January. 2001. The longterm unemployment rate. people who are unemployed for more than 26 weeks. has nearly doubled since that time. And the manufacturing jobs that we have lost literally have reached 2.9 million since 2001. There are. daytoday policy implications that affect peoples lives that result from the fiscal recklessness. There are consequences. The Republican economic disaster is hurting real people.
Date: 2006-04-05
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

I just want to give one quick statistic. Here is another thirdparty validator. the Tax Policy Center. And here is the startling contrast between the tax cuts that Mr. ROTHMAN was talking about that go to the wealthiest few and what the tax cuts have provided for the average working family in middle income America. In 2006. according to the Tax Policy Center. millionaires received an average tax cut of $111.550. while the middleclass American received a tax cut of $750. When I asked in my town hall meetings. and I represent a pretty middleincome. even middle to uppermiddle income district. I have a lot of wealthy communities and a lot of uppermiddle class communities and some middle to lowermiddle income communities. no matter what kind of room. other than the wealthiest few. that I ask people to raise their hands to tell me whether they got money in their pocket from the Bush tax cuts. maybe in rooms full of several hundred people I will get two or three people that raise their hand. If this tax relief was benefiting a wide swath of Americans. the broad spectrum of Americans of varied income. in a district like mine you would get more than three hands.
Date: 2006-04-06
Speaker: CORRINE BROWN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Chairman. "I believe that the current budget proposal does not accommodate really crucial city safety net needs. education needs and health care needs . . . (and) I have tried as clearly as I could to lay out my concerns. which frankly are shared by a significant number in this caucus." Now. you might think that this quote was taken from someone in the Democratic leadership. or the Congressional Black Caucus. but no: This is a quote from a Republican Member of the House of Representatives. And I ask. why. my colleagues. was this said? Well. the answer is simple. The Republican leadership is robbing from the poor to give tax cuts to the rich. Thats what this budget. and this debate. are all about. We are talking about priorities here folks. and this Republican budget certainly makes it clear who the party in power supports. and who they dont. Who do they support? Thats easy: big insurance companies. HMOs. millionaires on Wall Street. the oil industry and huge defense contractors. thats who. And who dont they support? Well. that question is easy too. just look at who gets the short end of the stick in this budget: teachers. police. first responders. students. our veterans. and the elderly. Yes. since the Republican takeover its the same old story folks: drastic cuts in vital social service programs. and going so far as to eliminate food programs for poor children and their mothers! This is a mean. mean spirited budget. my colleagues. and we need to send it right back to the smoky back room where the lobbyists and Republican leadership wrote it!
Date: 2006-04-06
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself 1 minute. I want to make clear I think the gentleman misunderstands the nature of the motion. This is not about whether you have hybrid plans or cash balance plans. We made hat very clear. We simply want those plans to protect the older workers that stand to lose a great deal of benefits. For younger workers there is some suggestion these plans may be better. It is interesting that 40 percent of the workers in these plans never get to a benefit even under this. But at a minimum. it ought to be clear that older workers are not going to suffer irreparable economic harm in terms of their retirement. Mr. Speaker. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey .
Date: 2006-04-06
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself 30 seconds. I would just say that this is about whether or not we continue in the direction that the Republican pension bill t..kes us where the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation said the bill made the system less secure. where the Congressional Budget Office said it made the system less secure. and now what we do not have are the protections on cash balance plans which make it- less secure. If we keep going in that direction. if we keep following the Republicans. Americas retirement benefits will be less and less secure. Their retirement will be in greater and greater jeopardy. We can change the direction. We can go in another direction. The Senate voted 972 to provide these kinds of protections. This is not some crazy partisan idea. This was a big bipartisan bill with Senator LOTT and others on this bill. and it is about protecting peoples pensions. Mr. Speaker. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont who has been working tlhis issue longer than anyone else in theHouse.
Date: 2006-04-06
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

I think it is important that we do this. Mr. Speaker. I yield 1 minute to the It is a good process for all of us to get gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. JACK- to talk through this system. But the SONLEE). defined pension system is a voluntary
Date: 2006-04-06
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. last week the Delphi Corporation. a key auto. parts supplier which employs 33.000 workers in the United States and has been in bankruptcy for several months. filed motions with the bankruptcy court to cancel its labor contracts and impose massive wage and benefit and job cuts on its workers and cut 21 of its 29 U.S. plants. And yet the House of Representatives has failed to hold a single hearing on this crisis. Unable to engage this crisis in an official hearing. I was joined by over a dozen Democratic colleagues in holding an ehearing this past December to ask the workers and retirees at Delphi and General Motors to testify on the Internet about how this crisis impacts them and their families. We swung open the virtual doors of Congress to make sure that their voices could be heard. Over 700 witness statements poured in. The workers testimony was deeply personal and heartfelt. And I want to share it with the House. From Rena Miller. a Delphi worker from Tanner. Alabama. From William J. Conrad from Dagsboro. Delaware. Danny Carter. a 49yearold Delphi employee who has been working in the Anaheim. California plant since he was 21 years old. And from Roger Smith. a retired Delphi worker now living in Hernando. Florida. Norbert Fuhs. a retired GM employee from Mitchell. Indiana. And Roger Talaga. a Delphi employee from Bay City. Michigan. who explained how the crisis would affect him and his family and the country.
Date: 2006-04-06
Speaker: BENNIE THOMPSON (democrat)
Chamber: H

our ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee. someone who has brought great intelligence. foresight. and determination to protecting America. to ensuring we have port security and airport securing. and that we plug many .of the gaping holes here in the homeland. I yield to the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.
Date: 2006-04-06
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

You asked why we were unable to vote on the budget. It is simple. Finally. finally. it obviously became clear to many of our Republican colleagues because we were all unified on the Democratic side. there was not going to be a single Democratic vote for this budget because we are not going to put a vote up for increasing the deficit or maintaining the deficit or increasing our national debt. We are not going to put a vote up on that board that makes drastic cuts in education or cuts in veterans health care. We are not going to put a vote up on that board that fails to protect the environment. This Republican budget would have done all of those things. I have been here 15 months. I am a freshmen. TlIs is my first year. I just completed my first year in Congress. and finally someone found a conscience on the other side of the aisle. Finally. it was not that they just put that bill out there and you saw enough arms being twisted and the board being held open long enough so they could wrench the votes that they needed.
Date: 2006-04-06
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Lets just look at the record here. What we are talking about and what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have been faced with is going home for the next 2 weeks and looking their constituents in the eye and having to tell them if this budget had gone forward and they had supported it. that they would be supportive of the five largest deficits in history. The topranking deficit in history was in 2004 when we had a $412 billion deficit. Number- two was in 2003 when we had a $378 billion deficit. . Number three was 20Q6. ttle current year. when we had i $372 billion deficit. The fourth largest year is 2007. still a $348 billion deficit. And the fifth largest deficit. 2005. the year that just ended. with a $318 billion deficit. Now these numbers jump all .over the board. but if you go in order. the deficit is going in the wrong direction. 2006 is when you had the third highest deficit in history. If. like the President said he was committed and his Republican leadership was committed to cutting the deficit in half. I dont know. It does not appear like it does. Is 318 half of 412? Are any of these numbers half of any other number here? I am not very good at math. but not the math I am familiar with. Now let us look at the debt limit because we have also been careening every year towards the debt ceiling. You have held up letter after letter after letter from Secretary Snow. the Secretary of the Treasury who begs us. who was begging us recently to please increase the debt limit so the United States of America does not default on its loans. the loans that you were just outlining that cover the country. Can you pull those up?
Date: 2006-04-06
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Lest people think that the increases we are talking about are small and insignificant. lets go through the kind of numbers that we are talking about and the increases we. are referring to. The Republicans have increased the debt limit by $3 trillion since 2002. That is- since 2002. This is 2006. In 2002 they increased it by $450 billion. In 2003. May of 2003. by another $984 billion. In November of 2004. the month I was elected. another $800 billion. Now. where is the planning? I mean. what is going on? They are spending like drunken sailors. That is what is going. They have no selfcontrol. Lets go to March 2006. which was just last month. $781 billion. And you know it would be nice if we could have some transparency and some clarity and honesty in this Chamber. which would mean that we would have had a straight up or down vote on the debt limit. But this last Lime it was tucked into legislation. I bet you most Members. I can assure you. most Members had no idea that the increase in the debt limit was in there. They do everything. the Republican leadership does everything possible to avoid us taking a straight up or down vote because. oh. my God. I mean. if they have -to go home and face the families that they represent. who every day are struggling. Mr. RYAN. to make ends meet and not run up debt on their -credit cards. and not spend more than they take in. well. it is a little tough to face your constituents when you dont do that with their money. There is no regard here for the use of the American taxpayers dollars because it apparently doesnt matter to the Republican leadership here that we are spending more than we have. Clearly. it is baffling. It really is. And this is the party. supposedly. at least .in name only. of fiscal responsibility. of smaller government. of reducing spending.
Date: 2006-04-06
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

And when you are dealing with the facts starin you in the face like that. then even their former leader. the chief architect of what was then called the Republican revolution that began in 1994. and the run up to the -1994 election. when he begins to use "us" and they" terminology. then you know they have really made some serious mistakes. They. the Republican leadership here has really made some serious mistakes. And lets just go through what .former Speaker Gingrich has said about what they are doing. He cited a series of blunders. Our third party validator for this eveningis the Knight Ridder news papers. And Speaker Gingrich was quoted in their papers on Friday. March 31. 2006. He cited a series of blunders under Republican rule. from failures in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to mismanagement of the war in Iraq. He said. the government has squandered billions of dollars in Iraq. But that is not all he said. He also noted that a congressional watchdog agency. and I will note that I can recall watching Speaker Gingrich on the House floor a number of times. and when he was in the minority. would cite the congressional watchdog either when the facts helped him. and then when he was in the majority. disparaging what the congressional watchdog that he was referring to said. depending on which side he felt like taking. But in this case he noted that a congressional watchdog agency recently smuggled a truck carrying nuclear ma-. terial in the country to test security. He said. why isnt the President pounding on the table? Why isnt he sending up 16 reform bills? -And that is the lack of outrage that we have talked about here on the .House floor in the 30something Working Group. Where is the outrage? I mean. if We have nuclear material being smuggled into this country. and no one knows it. where is their outrage? Where is the oversight? Where is the committee hearing? Another thing he said. here is where he calls them "they". In the same article. he says. they are seen by the country as being in charge of a government that cant function. Now. if the architect of the Republican revolution is calling the Republican leadership and the rank and file here "they". then I think it is clear that it is time for a change. It is time that we restore the PAYGO rules. It is time that we restore some fiscal responsibility. It is time that we make sure that actions match words. The American people. in each of their families. they struggle to spend only what they have.
Date: 2006-04-06
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Wehave been talking about the payasyougo needs that we havehere. Because we are the 30something Working Group. what we try to do really often is explain the multi generational impact that these fiscal policies and decisions have. Lets take alook at the eqonomic impact on college students. Mr. MEEK. We are talking about. in this chart. you have the average tuition and fees. which is this line here that has gone up and up and up. Yet. the Pell Grant average award has remained completely flat. The maximum award has also remained completely flat and doesnt even come anywhere close to meeting the needs that the students who ate trying to attend college and who arestruggling to get a higher educationneed the two to coincide. There is an impact seniors. an impact on college students. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.