macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2007-07-18
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia changed his vote from "no" to aye. So the amendment was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Date: 2007-07-19
Speaker: TIM MURPHY (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Pennsylvania

Mr. Speaker. here are some grim statistics. As of today. 1.095.896 cases. 49.320 deaths. and a cost of $27.397.260.282. This is not a war. These are infections that people pick up in hospitals. and these are based upon CDC estimates of 90.000 deaths per year. But a more recent study came from the Association for Professionals in Infection Control. say the numbers can be as high as 119.000 deaths and 12 million cases per year..When will we start acting to make sure that we have all hospitals act. as so many have done. to eliminate infections from hospitals? I ask my colleagues to cosponsor and to help pass H.R. 1174. the Healthy Hospitals Act. It is time we stop wasting health care dollars. health insurance dollars and wasting lives and start saving lives in hospitals the way so many hospitals have been able to do. Please. lets get moving to make our hospitals healthier.
Date: 2007-07-19
Speaker: JON PORTER (republican)
Chamber: H

said it all. I urge your positive vote on this motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2007-07-23
Speaker: MCMORRIS RODGERS (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 495. sponsored by my Pacific Northwest colleague. GREG WALDEN. improves a number of water management projects in central and eastern Oregon. The provisions in this bill reflect the work of the past two Congresses and enjoyed bipartisan support because they help water consumers and improve the environment. Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2007-07-24
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. the Moving to Work program has enabled Public Housing Authorities. PHTAs. to create jobs for .residents. add affordable housing stock. and help families build savings. Such efforts have gained recognition as being very successful in serving more families and helping recipients to selfsufficiency. The innovation and flexibility of the Moving to Work program helps more families realize selfsufficiency through locally oriented programs instead of HUDs onesizefitsall approach.. Despite these benefits. only 24 of the more than 3.000 PHAs in the Nation are participating in the Moving to Work program. This amendment merely clarifies existing law in order to eliminate confusion at HUD about the number of PHAs authorized to be designated as. Moving to Work. Congress has authorized 32 PHAs to participate in the Moving to Work program. Despite this clear intent to have 32 PHAs be designated as Moving to Work. due to what I view as a misinterpretation at HUD. there are only 24 agencies that are currently allowed to participate in the Moving to Work program. Once PHAs leave the Moving to Work program. HUD has said that no new agencies can be selected to fill their vacancies. This simple and straightforward amendment would- clarify Congresss intent to require HUD to. implement Moving to Work at its fully authorized level. The amendment directs the. Secretary of HUD to promptly approve new PHAs to participate in the Moving to Work program whenever the number of agencies is less than the total number and level we have authorized at 32. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Does the chairman plan on opposing this amendment?
Date: 2007-07-24
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Chairman OLVER. the Moving to Work program has enabled Public Housing Authorities to create jobs for residents. add affordable housing stock. and help families build savings. Such efforts have gained recognition as being very successful -and serving more families and helping recipients to selfsufficiency. Congress has authorized 32 PHAs to participate in the Moving to Work program. Unfortunately. due to the misinterpretation at HUD. there are only 24 PHAs that are allowed to participate in the Moving to Work program. Mr. Chairman. would you agree that .it is the intent of Congress that HUD must implement the Moving to Work program at its fully authorized level?
Date: 2007-07-24
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

I thank the gentleman. If PHAs move off the Moving to Work program. HUD must immediately solicit new applicants to keep the program at full force. and I hope this colloquy will eliminate confusion at HUD about the number of PHAs authorized to be designated as Moving to Work. Mr. Chairman. I withdraw the amendment.
Date: 2007-07-24
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I ask to engage the chairman of Transportation and HUD in another colloquy. Mr. Chairman. I have serious concerns about the administrations proposal to increase the Federal Housing Administrations multifamily mortgage insurance premium by 35 percent for fiscal year 2008. The administration proposed a similar increase last year. and rescinded it after hearing from Members of Congress and those in the industry most affected. I believe we again do not have sufficient information about the impact of this proposal on affordable rental housing for American workforces. The chairman of the Financial Services Committee Mr. FRANK and I are currently circulating a lettei to HUD among our colleagues opposing the increase in the premium. As of Monday. we .have 106 Members of Congress on record opposing the increase. A similar letter sent to HUD was recently signed by 38 Senators. We believe an increase in the premium -will impact the communities where housing would be built as well as tenants in those projects. HUD needs to perform a full assessment of the likely impact of such a premium increase on the volume of multifamily rental housing development. and the consequential effects of higher financing costs on rents to be borne by moderateincome residents. This thorough assessment of the -potential adverse effects of the.proposed premium increase needs to be submitted to the appropriate congressional committees. giving Congress the opportunity to evaluate the proposal. This would need to happen before allowing the increase to go into effect by simple notice.
Date: 2007-07-24
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I rise today to prevent HUD from implementing a new rule that will effectively close homeownership opportunity to many American families. In todays housing market. one of the primary barriers to achieving - the dream of homeownership is the lack of accumulated wealth and disposable income. Fortunately. some nonprofit organizations have developed programs to provide down payments to qualifying families. Such programs empower individuals and families who lack the necessary funds for down payment and other related costs. but can afford the monthly mortgage payment to become homeowners. These down payment assistance programs have proven successful in expanding ownership opportunity to. lowand moderateincome families. In the past. HUD has permitted- the use of these programs in conjunction with FHAinsured loans. Recently. however. HUD issued a proposed rule that would effectively eliminate sellerfunded down payment assistance programs. I am very concerned about the impact of this proposed rule on homeownership in this country. Rather than going too far. I believe we should develop reasonable and fair criteria by which these programs can continue to operate while also protecting the FHA insurance fund. If there are legitimate problems that have been identified by HUD. then lets work together to fix the problems. The. amendment I offer today with Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee Chairman WATERS and
Date: 2007-07-24
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman. I respect my good friends argument on behalf of Treasury and HUD. however. I want to remind my colleagues that it has been just a few years ago that Treasury and HUD came to us and asked us to implement the American Dream Down Payment Assistance Act. which means the Federal Government will give individuals the down payment and closing cost money necessary to be able to own a home that otherwise they would never be able to own a home where they can make the payment. The argument made to us is the private sector is doing it. We can implement upon what the private sector is doing. and with the governments participation. we can put even more people into homes. Now. if we have a problem as soie say with appraisals that are not being factual enough. then lets implement the same underwriting criteria that FHA will use on zero downpayment and FHA uses on the American Dream Downpayment Act. If you can come up with a reasonable appraisal to give Federal dollars to somebody to buy a home. why can you not come up with the same criteria for a reasonable appraisal- to help the private sector put people into homes?
Date: 2007-07-24
Speaker: MARIO DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

changed their vote from "aye" to "no." So the amendment was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. ] 1815
Date: 2007-07-24
Speaker: DAVID DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Tennessee

Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank my friend from Ohio for yielding and for his leadership. I come from the mountains of east Tennessee. We have a lot of common sense in those mountains. We understand when you spend $3.2 billion. thats a lot of money. We have men and women all around America right now sitting around their kitchen tables trying to decide just exactly how they are going to feed their children. how they are going to take care of their families. how they are going to pay the tuition and buy that next tank of gas. We talked about in the last election that we are going to be providing a change here in Washington. I believe the freshmen Republicans that came into Congress with me this year are here to offer that change. The way we offer that change is quit spending as much as has been spent in the past. We can do that. When we have an economy growing about 3 percent and this bill is going to grow by 6 or 7 percent. people understand you cant grow government at twice the rate of the American familys income. It just cant be done. We need to make sure that we use some commonsense when we put these budgets together. We cant spend more money than the American people can earn. I think the American people did send us here to Washington to rein in that spending. get a- handle on our fiscal House. I think this amendment by my friend from Ohio will go a long way towards doing that. This is not about a cut. This is simply about holding the line on spending. The American people can understand if they have $100 this year and somebody wants to grow it to $200 next year but you cant afford it. and you say. "I cant give you $200. but I will let you keep your $100." if you kept that at $100. that is not a cut. That is staying the same. That is what this amendment does. This simply says we are not going to grow that $3.2 billion. I thank the gentleman for his amendment.
Date: 2007-07-25
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to congratulate the prestigious independent school districts in Collin County. Texas. for their sterling reputation and superior education. Forbes Magazine. longtime experts on all things money. recently ranked the public schools in Collin County as second in the entire Nation for the best education for your dollar. What a tremendous distinction. The students overall average score was 1102 on the college entrance exam. and the schools boast a 92.2 percent graduation rate. This demonstrates that knowledgeable teachers. community pride. parental involvement and topquality schools are all working together to achieve academic success. I want to personally commend the cities of Allen.. Frisco. McKinney. Plano and Wylie and their independent school districts for this exceptional award and national recognition for what they do best. teaching our kids and making the future of Texas and the United States even brighter. Congratulations to all concerned.
Date: 2007-07-25
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Chairman. I rise today in strong support of the BiggertBrownWaite amendment t6 H.R. 3093. the Commerce. Justice. and Science Appropriations bill. Our amendment is vital in the FBIs efforts tocrack down on the rampant mortgage fraud in our Nation. FBI research showed over 3.000 reported Incidents of mortgage fraud in 2000. but more than 37.000 in 2006. This shocking. 10fold increase shows that predators are hitting more and more homeowners in all walks of lifefrom firsttime homebuyers to seniors. My great State of Florida reported the highest incidents of mortgage fraud in 2006. followed closely by Califomia. Michigan. and Georgia. The FBIs fraud caseload is growing dramatically. but the funds in this bill do not go far enough to keep pace. Our amendment transfers $6.25 million from the Department of Justices General Administration account to the Offices of the United States Attorney and the FBI. These funds will help provide additional staffing and resources so the FBI can get an adequate handle on these growing cases and bring relief to Americans who. in trying to achieve their dream of owning a home. have instead experienced their greatest nightmare. I urge my colleagues to support the BiggertBrown- Waite amendment.
Date: 2007-07-26
Speaker: DAVID DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Tennessee

Mr. Speaker. being from Tennessee. the Volunteer State. I volunteered to visit the men and womenin uniform in Iraq this past weekend. I .wasnt disappointed. Our troops are well trained. well motivated. and successful. During my visit to Iraq. I visited Ramadi. which until just afew months ago was a killing field overrun by al Qaeda. For the past 4"years. the people of Ramadi were caught in a decisionmaking battle of which group. us or the extremists. offered them the best chance for anormal and free existence. The insurgent extremists chose to win the local people over with the use of force. force against our American troops and against any local who did not support their radical agenda. Our troops. on the other hand. have reached out with friendship and support. The local people. seeing the difference. have chosen to have their lives return to normal and live in freedom. Ramadi has gone from a city of death and destruction to one of rebuilding and hope. I was able to see it firsthand. The cost to the American family is just too great to allow any other outcome than success in the global war on terror. We must win this war to protect our American way of life. now and into the future.
Date: 2007-07-26
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of border agents Ramos and Compean. and I believe we should know why U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton has thumbed his nose at a House panel and refuses to testify on why he protected a Mexican drug smuggler over our own border agents. Johnny Sutton gave. a confirmed drug runner free access to cross our border on condition he would not smuggle drugs again. but he has. Johnny Sutton found out the witness was running drugs. but still let him testify as an innocent victim. By allowing the drug runner to testify. Johnny Sutton let a known liar testify against our own border agents. Johnny Sutton must testify under oath why he did this. In view of this new evidence. President Bush should pardon Compean and Ramos today. They did not get a fair trial. and the punishment did not fit the crime. This case is a travesty to our justice system. Fix it. Mr. President.
Date: 2007-07-26
Speaker: MARIO DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Chairman. Im a little confused by this debate. Im not the most sophisticated person in the world. but if you have an increase. and then you decide to reduce the size of that increase. its still an increase. You know. when you cut down to the chase.. look. I think this is the question. Yes ask the American people. is the Federal Government so efficient. so perfect that it cannot absorb a slight reduction in the size of the increase. because its so efficient that every single penny is used perfectly. and. therefore. a reduction in the size of an increase. oh. is devastating because we have such a perfect Federal Government that we cant even reduce the size of the increase? Now. again. Im not real sophisticated. but back home. if you get an increase. or you say I want a 10 percent increase. and if you have a real job. a normal job like most Americans. and they go to their bosses and say. hey. I would like a 5 percent increase in my pay. and the boss says. I cant give you a 5 percent. Im going to give you a 41/2 percent. is that a cut in salary. or is that an increase in salary. but half a percent less than what you asked for? And again. if we thought that the Federal Government was so good. so efficient and so perfect that it cant absorb that. then dont support this amendment. But if you think that the Federal Government may be just a little bit imperfect. they might waste just a tiny bit of money. but maybe theres just a little bit of money that we could use elsewhere: then I would suggest. Im not going to get into the rhetoric on the math. but again. if you think that the Federal Government could maybe absorb a little bit less of an increase. then this is a very modest. decrease of the size of the increase. I thank the chairman.
Date: 2007-07-26
Speaker: DAVID DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Tennessee

Mr. Chairman. due to a meeting with the President at the White House this afternoon. I was not present to cast my votes on rollcall votes 734 through 742. Had I been present. I would have voted yea on the Steams amendmentrollcall 734. "aye" on the Flake amendment--rollcall 735. "aye" on the Flake amendmentrollcall 736. "aye" on the Pence amendment:-rollcall 737. "aye" on the Upton amendment--rollcall � 738. "aye" on the Jordan amendmentrollcall 739. "aye" on the Price of Georgia amendment--rollcall 740. "aye: on the Musgrave amendment--rollcall 741. and "aye" on the Campbell amendmentrollcall 742.
Date: 2007-07-26
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida changed her vote from "yea" to "nay." So the bill was passed. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider wAs laid on the table. Stated for:
Date: 2007-07-27
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Chairman. the agricultural issue in this amendment is really a subterfuge. because if we read. for example. the spokesman of U.S. Agribusiness. Mr. Radlow. he states that in the 5 years that we have been selling products to Cuba. the political hurdles have never hurt. We know how to deal with thirdparty banks. People use the hurdles as an excuse for not getting a contract. It is legal to sell agricultural products to the Castro regime since the year 2000. But as the gentlewoman from Florida. pointed out. ever since 2001 and the attacks of 2001. we have been making sure that U.S. financial institutions. to the greatest extent we can achieve it. are protected from state sponsors of terrorism. And as a matter of fact. the regulation being discussed today was requested by U.S. financial institutions. So lets not get confused. This amendment would allow a state sponsor of terrorism on the list of state sponsors of terrorism U.S. bank accounts and visas for their agents. over a dozen of which have been convicted in recent years alone of spying against United States interests. So lets vote down resoundingly this amendment.
Date: 2007-07-27
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. are there any parliamentary impediments to this bill being reported back on the next legislative day after being promptly reported to. the committee of jurisdiction?
Date: 2007-07-27
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I believe you misunderstood my parliamentary inquiry. My parliamentary inquiry was. under the rules of the House. are there any parliamentary impediments to having this bill considered on the next legislative day if it is promptly reported to the committee of jurisdiction?
Date: 2007-07-27
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I have to say that I am very proud of this House and the work that it has done on a bipartisan basis over the last number of years. the intervening years since 9/11. Thats why I was somewhat surprised by some of the comments. certainly from the gentleman from Florida. during the debate on the rule suggesting that nothing has been done since that time until we adopt this bill. I support this bill. I think it does give us an improved state over what currently exists. But to suggest that we havent done anything suggests to the American people that the billions of dollars that they have spent. as authorized by this House. the fact of the inconveniences they go through at airports. all the expenditures weve made with respect to increasing protections in aviation. in our ports. transit. and now what we are already doing with respect to chemical facilities is for naught. And when we make those arguments. we tend to lose the support of the American people because they throw their hands up and say. no matter what you- do. it doesnt make anything better. We ought to make it very clear. we are safer today than we were on September 10. We are safer today than we were 2 years ago. 3 years ago. a year ago. Are we safe enough? No. But to denigrate the efforts that have been made by good men and women in this body and the other body. the work thats being done by countless thousands of law enforcement individuals across this country. to denigrate the changes that have been made with respect to the cooperation between the intelligence community. the law enforcement community. and law enforcement communities on all levels. is nonsense. And more than that. it is detrimental to our effort to make this a safer country for the people we represent. This bill is a good bill. It has its warts like anything else. but its a good bill precisely because it builds on the achievements we have made over the last number of years. I want to thank the gentleman fromMississippi for working on our committee in a bipartisan basis. as the gentleman from New York did during his tenure as Chair. I think we have established a good basis for bipartisanship in this committee. and I think we ought to bring that to this floor. The American people should understand that the further we get away from 9/11 without having an attack on our land. the more difficult it is for us to continue to keep the vigilance up. But the fact that we have succeeded does not mean the threat has diminished. In many ways. it is stronger. not because we have not done anything. but because the enemy is strong. So I would say vote for this bill. take pride in this bill. but also take pride in the progress that has been made up to this point.