macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2006-07-19
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of House Resolution 921. Throughout its history. Israel has had to defend itself from groups that want to wipe it off the map. Hamas and Hezbollah do not want to negotiate a twostate solution. they want to go back to before 1948. That is not going to happen. The United States first recognized Israel and will continue to help Israel defend herself. The recent attacks. murders and seizure of soldiers by Hezbollah and Hamas are no different. and this House must affirm its commitment to Israel and stand behind that nations right to defend itself. Less than three weeks after the June 25 abduction of Corporal Gilad Shalit by Hamas in undisputed Israeli territory. Hezbollah opened a second front against Israel by attacking. killing and abducting more Israeli soldiers in northem Israel. Israels response was no different than the U.S. response would have been if someone had attacked across our border. Israel completely withdrew from southern Lebanon in accordartce- with United Nations Security Council Resolution 425. Despite this move to facilitate the peace process in the region. and despite U.N. Security Council resolution 1559which required Lebanon to take control of this region and to disarm and disband any militias in the countryLebanon allowed Hezbollah to operate in southern Lebanon. and receive material and funding from Iran and Syria Hezbollah launched four separate attacks earlier this year against Israel. Israel has been forced to defend itself from these terrorist groups to protect its borders and its people which have been targeted by Hezbollah rockets. Unlike Israel. which has carefully targeted Hezbollah members who hide and operate among the civilian populations. Hezbollah has indiscriminately fired rockets at northern Israeli civilian populations in cities like Haifa. Nazareth. and Nahariya. Mr. Speaker. these attacks by the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas on Israels borders. military. and civilian population have forced Israel to respond. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution reaffirming our support for Israels right to defend itself.
Date: 2006-07-19
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. the first duty of the government is to protect its citizens. and I stand by Israels right to defend herself against Hezbollahs aggression. This bipartisan resolution sends a powerful message that the United States Congress and the American people support our friend Israel at this critical hour. Hezbollahs capture of Israeli soldiers was unprovoked. I call on the Governments of Iran. Lebanon. and Syria. who have influence over the fate of the captured Israeli soldiers. to secure their immediate and unconditional release. Hezbollah must be disarmed to prevent a similar conflict in the future. A simple ceasefire will not accomplish this goal. Any nation that refuses to act against terrorist networks -simply stands as a willing accomplice. The actions of Hezbollah and the complicity of Syria and Iran demonstrate that former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was right when she said. ."Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us." I strongly support this resolution and stand by Israel in her pursuit of peace and security. As an American mother. I wish that mothers around the world. Iranian. Syrian. and mothers universally. spend the time that I have spent talking to my twin 7yearolds and will teach my almost 3yearold girl. when she is old enough to understand. that we are all equal. We are all equal under. the eyes of God. My 7yearold daughter is here with me this week. and she asked me about what we are debating here tonight. She asked me. "Mommy. why dont some people like us?" And that question broke my heart. Madam Speaker. because the only answer I could give her was because we are Jewish and because we have different beliefs.. Please let us not have another generation of our children grow up knowing hatred. Israel and her children need the world to stand with her in support of her right to defend herself and in support of peace.
Date: 2006-07-19
Speaker: AL GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Madam Speaker. I thank Mr. HYDE. the chairperson. and I thank my friend Mr. LANTOS. the ranking member. Madam Speaker. I want peace for both Palestinians and Israelis. I want justice for both Palestinians and Israelis. And I support House Resolution 921 condemning the recent attacks on Israel and supporting Israels right to defend herself. Madam Speaker. Hezbollah has killed more Americans than any other terrorist group. save al Qaeda: 257 Americans killed in the 1983 bombings of the U.S. embassy and barracks in Beirut. 19 Americans killed in the 1996 bombings of the Khobar Towers. Hezbollah has more than 13.000 rockets capable of hitting Israeli citie and towns and killing innocent persons. Does.anybody think that these rockets will just go away? Hezbollah wasnt getting weaker. Hezbollah was getting stronger. Israel must defend herself or there will be no Israel to defend.
Date: 2006-07-20
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to ask my colleagues to vote "no" on the previous question. This would allow us to consider the Cardin amendment to close the loophole in the agreement that would allow a foreign company based in Oman to operate U.S. port facilities. Earlier on I was opposed to the Oman Free Trade Agreement because it undermines fundamental workers rights. This free trade agreement is another blow to working families. exporting more of our jobs overseas. But I was shocked to learn that it could underpin the basic safety and security of those who I was sent here to represent. I come from a community that is directly tied to this Nations largest port. the Port of Long Beach. The safety and security of this port and all other American ports are essential to our country. The Oman FTA directly threatens our ability to control our Nations ports. The creators of this deal completely ignored. Congress overwhelming response to the Dubai Ports World deal because. just like that deal. In 1979. Oman supported the Camp Throwing American workers out on the Oman FTA has a very farreaching David Accords and was one of only the street. moving to countries where provision hidden completely from the three Arab League states which did not people are paid pennies an hour. is bad public eye. break relationships with Egypt after public policy. It has failed. One of the Buried deep in the annex of this the signing of the EgyptianIsraeli definitions of insanity is to do the agreement. our countrys right to de- peace treaty in 1979. same thing over and over again. That termine who operates our ports of In April of 1994. Oman hosted the ple- is what this Congress does. -It fails entry is given away. Who gets the new nary meeting of the Water Working every single time. right to control vital American infra- Group of the peace process and was the Mr. Speaker. before we vote for unstructure? Any group of people or gov- first gulf state to do so. fettered free trade with Oman. we eminent that incorporates to do busi- On December 26. 1994. Oman became should consider this. In Oman. the minness in Oman. the first gulf state to host an Israeli imum wage ranges from absolutely The same people who supported the Prime Minister. again trying to build zero to $1.30 an hour. The average wage Dubai Ports World deal are now telling on a relationship of peace with another in Oman is about $13.200. below the us that this is. again. nothing to worry important ally of ours in the Middle poverty line for a single mother with about. They were wrong then. and they East. one child living in this country. are wrong now. We should not export Oman has eliminated all aspects of Is that fair competition for American the safety and security of Americans. I the Arab boycott of Israel. In 2005 and workers? In addition. Mr. Speaker. we urge again my colleagues to vote "no" 2006. senior Omani officials issued let- hear a lot from this administration and on the previous question. ters affirming that Oman has no boy- my Republican colleagues about the
Date: 2006-07-20
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. as a cochair of the Congressional Labor and Working Families Caucus. I rise today in strong opposition to the Oman Free Trade Agreement. The Oman FTA contains no effective mechanisms to enforce labor or human rights laws. Instead. this agreement relies on the empty promises that Oman will enforce its own labor laws. If we accept this deal. we are saying to foreign countries: It is okay to force labor among threefourths of your workers. We are telling them it is okay to deny workers the right to organize for safer working conditions and better wages. If we accept this deal. we turn a blind eye to poor working conditions and organized humanrtrafficking to fill sweat shops. I would remind my colleagues that the terms and conditions of trade agreements determine what is and is not acceptable. Let me be clear. If we agree to a deal that does not live up to basic labor and human rights standards. then we are deliberately establishing a lower standard for worker rights in this country and around the world. We should be setting a fair trade standard that allows the benefits of commerce.to raise and not lower standards for everyone. Vote "no" on Oman FTA.
Date: 2006-07-20
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to express my views regarding the Oman Free Trade Agreement. I have supported certain trade agreements in the past because I believe they can be an important step toward opening markets for U.S. businesses. I also believe that the economic interdependence that flows from trade agreements can help create a more cooperative and peaceful worid by solidifying ties between nations. That is why I supported agreements with Australia. Chile. Morocco. Bahrain and Singapore. This outlook informs my approach to trade agreements and as I carefully considered the provisions of the Oman Free Trade agreement. I recognized its potential for opening Omans market to U.S. agriculture. manufacturing and the services industry. But a trade agreement is about more than trade. it is also about the fair treatment of workers and other considerations. With respect to workers rights. the Oman FTA is seriously flawed. Like CAFTA. the Oman FTA only requires the Omani Govemment to enforce its own labor laws. And when violations occur. the Omani Government is only required to pay a financial penalty to itself. This provision is a source of concern to me in light of reports by the international labor community that Omans labor laws fall far short of meeting the International Labor Organizations core labor standards and do not provide Omani workers with the fundamental protections needed to prevent workplace exploitation. Oman has a massive guest worker population. comprising over 75 percent of Omans total work force. According to reports. in Oman. guest workers are prevented from exercising their international labor rights and have reportedly been jailed for complaining about the working conditions and violation of labor rights. My concerns about the Oman FTA were reinforced by news reports coming out of Jordan about violations of Jordanian workers rights. Before these incidents. the Jordan Free Trade Agreement was considered the gold standard for labor provisions in trade agreements.. Jordans labor laws are strong and it has long experience administrating them. That is why. when I read the May 3. 2006. New York Times article describing the abusive conditions in Jordans apparel industry. I also grew concemed about the lack of protections for workers in Oman. Reports are emerging from Jordan of an environment where workers put in 20hour days with little or no pay and where physical abuse is rampant. If workers rights are not enforced in Jordan. there is little hope that workers in Omanwhere independent unions are outlawedwill have their rights protected. Trade agreements must at least hold open the reasonable prospect that workers will be treated faidy. This agreement fails that test.
Date: 2006-07-20
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to instruct be considered as read and printed in the RECORD.
Date: 2006-07-20
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

I think that is an important point. When the Federal Government made the decision to change to the TSP system. which is turning out to be a very successful system. we provided this kind of transition. What the conference committee is about to impose on the American working public no Member of Congress would impose on themselves. They wouid be asking for some kind of transition. some kind of holdharmless so that people would be protected who are older. who have more years into the system. because they dont have the ability to gather other income. And I think the gentleman makes a very important point that. once again. life is different inside of the Beltway than it is outside of the Beltway. And the people outside of the Beltway have a lot less ability to try to make up for that lost savings to manage their retirement. I thank the gentleman for making the point. I continue to yield.
Date: 2006-07-20
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

I just want to again thank him for the point that this pension bill cannot be considered in a vacuum. The very same people who are going to be punished as a result of companies that convert to cash balance that will not provide this kind of protection. they can do it voluntarily. but they will not. and many of them wont. and the gentleman has struggled with companies who thought that they didnt have to. These are the same people that are getting their retirement health care benefits cut back. that are having trouble with or are going to have trouble with paying for prescription drugs. Today. people are continuing to work and people say to people. you know. just save more money. Well. as we know. most people. the average American working person has a great deal of difficulty saving. And to now tell them to save. if you are 50 years old. according to -the GAO. you will lose about $238 a month. If you are 40 years old. you will lose about $188 a month. If you are 50 years old. this has to be net savings that you are going to have to try to save. Youd have to save. before your retirement. a net $40.000. outside of your rent. outside of your house payment. outside of your kids. outside of everything else. if you could get 5 percent return on your money. Where does the American family go to get that kind of money that Congress is about to take away from them? Where do they go? Most families. both people are working. And if you are 50 years old. it is highly unlikely that you are going to go out and find a job that is going to replace this loss of savings. So when people say. well. we cant guarantee the expectations of these workers. No. what we are guaranteeing is a contract that this worker made with the company and the company made with the worker. We understand the benefits and the changes for younger workers. and this isnt about being against cash balance plans. It is about fairness. I yield to the gentleman.
Date: 2006-07-20
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

The idea. again. the suggestion is somehow. when the Senate passed this. 973. and when we voted overwhelmingly in a motion to instruct to do this. that somehow you are trying to reserve the status quo. The fact is that CSX. a very successful railroad company. Verizon Telecom. the Federal Government. Motorola. Dow Chemical. Federal Express. Wells Fargo. these are not slacking companies. These are leaders in their industry. They all realized billions of dollars in savings. They also took care of their older workers. And that is what we are. asking that this conference committee do. You do not have to throw these older workers onto the wood pile. They can be protected. The company can realize billions of dollars over the life of the pension plans in savings that they can reinvest in their company. and they can change their pension plans. We just ask that you dont decimate older workers. I yield to the gentleman.
Date: 2006-07-20
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

W at are you doing to people? What are you doing to people? You have controlled the conference. You control the White House. You control the House. You control the Senate. Control your time. The fact of the matter is this is the � same thing. We are making a conscious decision. a conscious decision. to rip away these pension benefits from these workers. And the most devastating thing about this decision is it is not necessary. You can have massive pension reform to the benefit of the employees. to the benefit of the employers. to the benefit of the shareholders. without devastating the older workers. So why dont we do it right? Why dont we do it in a humane way? Why dont we do it right. recognizing the situation that Americas older workers find themselves in. people 50. 55. 60 years old? What are they going to do? Take a second job for their retirement? Maybe their spouse can go out and take a third job for their retirement? That is not the way we should treat American citizens. That is not the way we should treat taxpayers. And that is not the way we should treat hardworking American families who simply do not have enough money to make up for this kind of devastating cut in their retirement. I urge my .colleagues to vote for the motion to instruct. It will be up sometime. I believe. Monday. and I would strongly encourage you to vote "aye" on this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2006-07-20
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I think despite the fact there are 3.000 miles between the area you represent and the area I represent. that is certainly one of the things that brings our constituents together. I think what they are all looking for. regardless of where they live in this great country of ours. is some real leadership on this very important issue. This House just a few weeks ago had another opportunity to send a statement on the fact that we wanted a forwardlooking energy plan with a new direction or whether we just wanted to go the same old. same old. Our colleague. Congressman MARKEY of Massachusetts. offered an amendment. It said let us put an end to another subsidy to provide for deepwater drilling for oil and gas. In other words. and I just want to make this clear. in other words.- taking funds from our constituents and providing it to the oil and gas companies effectively in the form of a subsidy so that they can drill for oil and gas. Now. even this administration said they were against this particular subsidy. but not the leadership in this House. not the Republican leadership in this House. It went right out of this House because. unfortunately. the Republican leadership is still in the old frame of mind that we can just keep doing what we used to be doing rather than moving in a very new direction. I would like to pick up briefly on our point that our colleague here. Ms. KAPTUR. made with respect to the issue of the Federal Government leading by example. It is hard for all of us to ask people around this country to do things in the area of energy efficiency when the Federal Government itself has been such a deadbeat on this. The Federal Government. after all. is the largest single consumer of energy in the United States and yet. again. after the President gave his State of the Union address. he submitted the fiscal year 2007 budget. and that was the lowest request ever for Federal Government energy efficiency efforts. In fact. that was lower. despite the fact in 2004 the Federal Government consumed more energy than at any other time in the last 10 years. So. again. I get back to the point. you got to say what you mean and you got to follow through. Here was another example. This is the day of the State of the Union address. the budget came down. and yet the budget came down. the President. head of the executive branch. submitted a budget that reduced funds for energy efficiency programs in the Federal Government. That is not leading by example. Part of our new directions program is we say we will ensure that the Federal Government will be part of the solution. not part of the problem.
Date: 2006-07-20
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Well. the gentleman is right. and I think the statistics on this are clear. that even if you took all the oil you could possibly drill out of Alaska. with all the costs and the environmental damage. it would deal with only a very short period of 1 year. less than 1 year. a couple weeks to months in terms of our total energy use. So if you are trying to break an addiction. you do not keep feeding that addiction. What you need to do is have a different approach in general. [ 1700 As Ms. KAPTUR has said. it is not just one different thing. it is many different technologies and different ideas that you need to work on. But what you dont do if you want to kick a habit is keep encouraging that habit to remain. And yet that is what we have been using so much of our natural resources to do. We should not be using. taxpayer money to do the oil and gas subsidies. Rather. we should be using our efforts to encourage these other ideas that are in our national interest. The President has said we have a problem. That is not the issue. apparently. But the issue is what are we doing about it. That is why I think this discussion is important. I really do believe it is a terrible thing when so many of the others around the world are ahead of us in so many areas where we should be leading the way. We have a great entrepreneurial spirit. We have the resources and talents to do this. There is no reason why other countries should be beating us in the area of renewable energy development and energy efficiency technologies. And yet they are. I think that is because of a lack of national leadership. Other countries have made this a priority. In this country we have made it a priority for sound bites. but we have not made it a priority for policy.