macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2005-06-27
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I rise to applaud the United States Supreme Court for their ruling today in the case of MetroGoldwynMayer Studios. Ihcorporated v. Grokster. By a unanimous ruling. 90 in favor of MGM. the Supreme Court sent a -strong message today that our courts will protect the work of creative artists. I represent the 39th Congressional District in California. My State. region. and district are home to the motion picture industry. the music industry. and software companies. Many of my constituents work in these creative industries. and I -know from talking to them that piracy hits their companies hard and their pocketbooks harder. Intellectual property is important to our economy as a whole. so copyright infringements also severely damage our national economy. In fact. according to the International Intellectual Property Alliance. in 2002. core copyright industries accounted for over 6 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. That is over $626 billion. When you look at. all copyright industries. they accounted for approximately 12 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. or $1.25 trillion in 2002 alone. Obviously. intellectual property is a vital part of our economy. and piracy robs our economy of billions of dollars from this important industry. Conservative estimates say that counterfeiting of U.S. businesses copyrighted goods cost our economy between $200-$400 billion each year. When our economy suffers like that. Americas workers suffer. too. The "core" copyright industries alone were estimated to have employed 4 percent of U.S. workers in 2002. a total of 5.48 million workers. But piracy causes 750.000 American workers to lose their jobs each year. This is where intellectual property laws come in and why the Supreme Court decision today in the Grokster is so important. The Court drew a line in the sand in the Grokster case and said that peertopeer filesharing networks that encourage illegal filesharing should not be shielded by our laws. The ruling protects the creative community but also allows the public to retain access to the benefits of peertopeer filesharing technology. Mr. Speaker. I love movies and music as much as any consumer. and I use computer software every single day. I am also a fan of the Internet. and I want consumers to be able to use technology to get their favorite music and movies conveniently... But stealing is stealing. Swapping copyrighted files online is illegal. and just because it is easy doesnt make it right. We can have peertopeer networks that give every American access to the files they want online. and also provide creators with copyright protections. As long as companies like Grokster are alrowed to facilitate illegal file swapping. we will continue to lose hundreds of dollars and hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs each year. I am pleased that the Supreme Court took the first step today in Grokster towards ending illegal copyright infringement online. and proteqting the industries that produce copyrighted works.
Date: 2005-06-27
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. It is wonderful to be here with the both .of them. my two esteemed colleagued from the next generation in the United States Congress. and I have been able to listen to a little of what they have been saying on my way over here. A few weeks ago when we were talking about this before the latest version of the privatization scheme was put on the table. we were talking about how interesting it is that no matter how many times they are told no. they still keep coming back with the same concept. just .a different version. And I know I analogized it is like when I speak to my children and they keep asking me and asking me if they can do something that I do not think they should do for one reason or another. whether it is not responsible or they are not old enough. and they try a lot of different versions of the same thing. and the answer is still no because I have carefully reviewed what they want to do. as their parent. and decided it is not the best timing right now or for whatever reason I have concluded it is not a good idea. It would be as if ones teenager came to them and said Mom. Dad. I really want to go to this party. and I want to stay out until 2 oclock in the morning. and the parent said. no. that is not a good idea. and so they come back to them. This new proposal is like if ones teenager came back to them and said I still want. to go to the party. but I promise I will be home by midnight. The whole idea was that they did not want them to go to the party in -the first place. And after 60 -days initially on the road trying to sell his privatization scheme to the American people and essentially they have rejected it and an additional 60day effort where the more the President talks about this. the less people like it. it is mindboggling to me. And I am the sort of baby of the group of the threeof us. I am a freshman. I was just elected. It is mindboggling to me that they do not want to come to the table now. as we have been asking them to do. and come up with a bipartisan solution. Privatization balloons the deficit. It cuts benefits. and yet every version of their proposal. the premise of it is to privatize Social Security. and that pulls the safety net out from future retirees and. quite honestly. from people who are about to retire. I. actually- had an electronic town hall meeting today at 4:30. which was amazing. We got tremendous feedback. But can I tell my colleagues that not one person who participated. and I had over 100 people participate live and 120 people signed on in advance of our beginning. and no one said. "You really need to congider private accounts. We really want you to do this." I mean. it is time to sit down and put privatization aside. and like in 1983 when Tip ONeill and Ronald Reagan and Daniel Patrick Moynihan and others who were part of that group.sat down and in a bipartisan way came up with a solution. It is time.
Date: 2005-06-27
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. the two of us are from a State and from a region of a State where it would be expected that there would be deep. deep concern about the potential. privatization of Social Security. Obviously. we have a disproportionately high. percentage of senior citizens in my district and the gentleman from Floridas district. But like the gentleman from Ohio said. across all demographic groups. all regions of the country. there is no group that has wide or deep support for this concept. and that is because people are uncomfortable at every level with the explosion of the deficit and this proposals potential to expand it even more. When I asked at my live town hall meetings whether people were confident enough in their own investment ability to be assured that their own investment decisions would carry them all the way through their entire retirement years. no one except for twopeople in three town hall meetings with more than 600 people in attendance. no one raised their hand. because look at the ebb and flow of the stock market. and this proposal is not backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. If people hit a bump in the road where one year the stock market is not going so well. it is whatever is left when they retire in that account with a proportionate cut in their Social Security benefits.
Date: 2005-06-27
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. if the gentleman from Florida will continue to yield. if he does not mind my adding one more thing. like I said. I am a freshman. I was elected. I have been in Congress for 6 months. I really expected there to be a lot more collegiality in this body. The gentlemen are veterans. now. of this process. I have talked to my Republican freshmen colleagues on the other side. We all expected there to be more of an opportunity to work together. less rancor. It is sort of astonishing. and it is astonishing. I think. to the average American that we are still bickering about this and that we are all sharpening our elbows and digging in and going to our respective corners instead of acknowledging. like we are willing to do. that there is a problem with Social Security. -It is not a crisis like the President has been portraying. but there is a problem. a longterm problem with Social Security. and we need to come together and make some changes. But. unfortunately. the leadership in this Congress. the Republican leadership. just wants to be right. or somehow if they say it enough times. perhaps they think that they will be right when the American people are clearly telling them they are not.
Date: 2005-06-27
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. if the gentleman will yield further. there are three things I want to add to augment the gentleman from Floridas comments. One of them is 30something oriented. I noted when I went and spoke at Memorial Day services this year and Veterans Day services on November 11 of last year. that every previous Veterans Day and Memorial Day that I was able to participate in as an elected official prior to my time in the legislature. I was able to thank them. And generally the crowds that come to thoge events are older folks. senior citizens especially in Florida. veterans of many wars. I was able to say "thank you" from our generation. because prior to now. our generation is the first since before World War II that has never been called to war. that had never had the casualties that the generations before us had. And I was able to thank them for allowing us to stand on their shoulders and their sacrifice. But I cannot say that any more. I cannot say that any more. because. as was read tonight. the more than 1.500 names that we are in the process of reading. we could have a whole hour just on the Iraq war and our deep concerns over that. But to continue in the gentlemans thought process about health care for veterans. I visited Walter Reed Army Medical Center a few weeks ago and had an opportunity to visit with soldiers who had come back from Iraq and Afghanistan without their legs. hearing their stories. watching the pain etched in their face. and the dedication .that they have. To the person. they wanted to go back. and their regret was they were not able to. they had to leave their comrades behind. These people are struggling to get the health care they need when they are still enlisted. At home in South Florida and across the country. our veterans. as the gentleman said. 6 months is not an exaggeration for how long our veterans have to wait to get their health care needs taken care of. Is that the thanks that we give them. the proud veterans that have served this country? We sound so soapboxish.. but your actions have to back up your words. It is really nice to stand on the floor and give a good speech and get all choked up. but what matters is how you cast that vote and what your light up on that board when they put it up there says. and you are either with them or against them. The Members that voted against those amendments that were offered in committee and on this floor and who opposed them. in spite of valiant speeches that were made on behalf of those veterans. should be ashamed of themselves.
Date: 2005-06-27
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I think that we have demonstrated here tonight. as we will in the future. that there are so many issues facing our generation. and we need to make sure that we take this country back in the right direction so that when our generation inherits the results of the decisions that we are making here. that we are not struggling to make sure that we can clean up the mess that was left for us.
Date: 2005-06-27
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I have a point of personal privilege. Mr. Chairman. I believe. under the traditions of the House. the Chair is the Speaker of the Whole House. and the Chair has an obligation to call the vote in the manner in which the vote was arrived at under the voice vote. It is not a question of whether the ayes or the noes will prevail on a recorded vote. The question is what happened on the floor at that particular time. In this instance. the yeas prevailed. and the Chair said the noes prevailed. A number of years ago. we had very heated debates on this floor from the Republican side. from Mr. Walker. because they felt that they were insulted. especially when cameras came into this Chamber. that the Chair would call votes against their interests when they clearly prevailed on the voice. The Chair was admonished by the Speaker of the House. and we went back to what was the traditionally fair point of view. So I would ask the Chair in the future. and futtire Chairs. to recognize that the Chair is calling the event that takes place in front of the Chair on the floor. not what the Chair perceives to be. and may be correctly so. the outcome of the vote later on in the day when the recorded vote is taken. Mr. Chairman. I demand a recorded vote on the Chairs ruling.
Date: 2005-06-28
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Madam Speaker. I rise in support of S. 714. the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005. The FCCs recent proposal to require written permission to send commercial fax messages created a great deal of controversy. and I .support this small amendment to ihe Junk Fax law that will make the larger law work better. I am a strong supporter of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and its ban on unsolicited commercial faxes. which place an undue financial burden on small business and individual recipients. Its one thing to have to receive a unsolicited telemarketers callits even worse to have to pay for it by having to replace the paper from your fax machine. However. I agree that the explicit. written notification requirement contemplated by the FCC in its proposed rulemaking is problematic for some situations like trade associations. realtors. and others who already have existing business relationships. As a result. I am pleased to join the bipartisan leadership of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in supporting S. 714. the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005. This Act corrects the FCCs rule and allows for businesses to communicate with other businesses with whom they have an established business relationship. as long as they allow business to "optout" of future faxes. This new law will not weaken protections for residential consumers or protection for businesses from unsolicited ads for printer toner. vacation deals. and other sales pitches that cost consumers money. This new law will prevent businesses and realtors from having to fill out paperwork to communicate with each other about an existing business relationship. Madam Speaker. I support this bill and urge its adoption by the full House.
Date: 2005-06-28
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise today to voice my support for this bill. the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006. A strong foreign operations budget enables the U.S. to confront national security threats such as international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. as well as strengthen relations with.other countries. address challenges like the genocide in Darfur. help safeguard human rights. and address problems such as hunger and AIDS. I am especially pleased with the strong and continued support in this bill for our close ally. Israel. This bill provides $2.5 billion in assistance for Israel. including $2.3 billion for military grants. and $240 million in.economic assistance. As Israel takes bold steps to promote the peace process by disengaging from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. relinquishing security control of West Bank towns. and releasing hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. this funding will be essential to Israels security and economic wellbeing. This bill also includes an important provision expressing the sense of Congress that Arab League countries should immediately end the boycott against Israel and its trading partners. and calls on President Bush to consider a countrys participation in the boycott when determining whether to sell U.S. weapons to the country. The bill also withholds U.S. funds for the International Red Cross headquarters building in Geneva until the organization recognizes the Magen David Adorn Society as the national humanitarian society of Israel. Finally. the measure includes $40 million for the resettlement of refugees from the former Soviet Union. Eastern Europe and Ethiopia to Israel. provided through the Migration and Refugee Assistance Account. To uphold our commitment to the only true democracy in the Middle East and Americas closest ally in the war on terror. Congress must ensure Israel has the means necessary to defend herself. Mr. Chairman. this bill provides these funds and reaffirms our dedication to Israels well being. and for that reason. I urge my corleagues to join me in supporting it.
Date: 2005-06-28
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Messrs. LoBIONDO. HEFLEY. GOODLATTE. UDALL of Colorado. UDALL of New Mexico. FRANKS of Arizona. CANTOR. FRANK of Massachusetts. BURTON of Indiana. SERRANO. Towns and Ms. McCOLLUM changed their vote from "no" to "aye." So the amendment was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. Stated against:
Date: 2005-06-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. today I rise in support of the McGovern. McCollum and Moore Amendment to the FY06 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill that will reduce counternarcotics and military funding to Colombia by $100 million. The U.S./Colombia campaign against drugs and terrorism is not working. Not only have efforts to reduce the production of cocaine in Colombia not been effective. funds from the program that should have been used to fight terrorism are instead being used by paramilitary groups to commit human rights abuses. The U.S. has invested billions of dollars into Plan Colombia and successive programs since passing the FY 2000 budget. The Bush administration wants to continue this misguided policy with a request for $734 million in the FY06 Foreign Operations Appropriations request for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. One of the main objectives of Plan Colombia has been to prevent the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S. At the center of this effort has been the aerial spraying of herbicides on Colombias coca crops. But U.S. and UN reports confirm that aerial spraying has not produced any appreciable reduction in coca production. In fact. cocaine production in Colombia may even have increased. According to the UN. 62 percent of Colombian coca fields detected in 2004 were new! The lack of any appreciable reduction in production combined with an increase in production in countries such as Bolivia and Peru has actually led to an increase of supply on the global market and a decrease in the cost of cocaine in the United States. Mr. Chairman. I am also troubled by reports in the news that recently the Colombian Congress. while- approving a law governing the disarmament of its countrys death squads. at the same time. granted generous concessions to paramilitary commanders accused of huran rights abuses. I am concerned that U.S. assistance is being used by Colombian security forces that operate in conjunction with paramilitary forces targeting social leaders with threats. disappearance. and execution. The U.S. should not provide assistance to governments that refuse to hold perpetrators accountable for human rights abuses. Mr. Chairman. until I am convinced that the funds to Colombia are fixing the problem instead of making it worse. I cannot support full funding for aid to Colombia. That is why I support the McGovern. McCollum. Moore Amendment. Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2005-06-28
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I intend to withdraw this amendment. and the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman KOLB9) has been kind enough to agree to engage in a colloquy with me- on the issue of International Military Education and Training. or IMET. funding for Vietnam. I strongly support the IMET program. Sitting on the Committee on Armed Services. I understand that it is a vital tool for furthering regional security cooperation and promoting United States interests overseas. Vietnam held off on agreeing to participate in the IMET program for quite a while because they were concerned about scrutiny of their human rights record. and those concerns are wellfounded. Vietnam is responsible for a broad range of human rights abuses. including the repression of ethnic minorities. detention and torture of political dissidents. and the repression of religious freedom. The U.S. designated Vietnam as. a "Country of Particular Concern" in 2004 because of its violations of religious freedoms. With this designation. Vietnam joins a club including Burma. China. Iran. and North Korea. So. should the United States provide IMET for these countries? Why should Vietnam be any different? The Vietnamese military has reportedly been involved in numerous cases of human rights violations. including violence and brutal suppression of the peaceful Montagnard people in demonstrations in April of 2004. Providing humanitarian assistance to a country is one thing. Establishing trade relations. is yet another. But military assistance suqh as IMET requires an even higher standard. Why would we want to establish military relations with a repressive regime. one in which our potential counterparts are directly involved in that repression? I think Vietnam should not be eligible for IMET assistance until it has demonstrated a willirigness to treat all its citizens with the fundamental dignity and respect that they deserve. Can the chairman provide me with assurances that Vietnams human rights record and the record of its military in particular will be taken into consideration as part of Vietnams eligibility for IMET funding?
Date: 2005-06-28
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. reclaiming my time. I thank the gentleman for his interest in the issue. and I am glad to hear that our policy towards Vietnam will not ignore human rights objectives. I sincerely appreciate the chairman taking the time with this important matter. Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
Date: 2005-06-29
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. this week I and over 60 of my colleagues will introduce a comprehensive reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. VAWA is set to expire on September 30 of this year. so it is vital that this Congress quickly consider and pass the reauthorization. Since its passage in 1994. VAWA has been a great success. It has provided over $5.5 billion in Federal funding to improve our criminal and community responses to domestic violence. But the statistics remain alarming. One in every four women will experience domestic violence during her lifetime. Last year. California law enforcement received 198.000 domestic violence calls. with weapons involved in over 136.000 of those cases. The reauthorization that we are putting forward this week will go a long