macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2007-01-09
Speaker: DAVID DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Tennessee

I think it is vitally important that it is individuals and small business owners and businesses across this country that pay these taxes. And I want to put a personal face on this. If the majority party allows taxes to be increased. it will cost us nearly $2.4 trillion in new taxes to American taxpayers. What does that mean to people across America tonight and the people in the First Congressional District of Tennessee? It means that there will be 115 million taxpayers who would pay an average of $1.716 more each year. It means that 48 million married couples would pay an average of $2.726 more every year. and it means that 17 million seniors would pay an average of over $2.000 more a year. It is real people paying real dollars. and I hope the people in this body will remember that as we move forward. I am disappointed that we changed the rules last week with the majority vote to decrease the amount of people that it takes to increase taxes. I think it should have been left at threefifths. not a simple majority. I think that was a mistake last week when the majority party did that. I hope they will protect taxpayers in America over the next 2 years.
Date: 2007-01-10
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. while I am not sold on the effectiveness of a minimum wage increase. I rise in support of increasing the number of Americans with health insurance. Too many working Americans have a job but arent insured because their employers cannot afford to purchase quality health care plans. This is particularly true of small businesses where it is difficult to pool risk. and the regulatory environment is overwhelmingly complicated. Currently. small businesses are denied the ability to purchase health coverage with the benefits large companies and unions have enjoyed for decades. So today. as part of a comprehensive motion to recommit. the Republicans will offer a proposal to address health care for many small businesses: association health plans. AHPs would increase small businesses bargaining power with health care providers. give them muchneeded freedom from a costly Statemandated benefit package and lower their overhead costs by as much as 30 percent. By pooling their resources and increasing their bargaining power. AHPs will help small businesses reduce their health insurance coverage costs. As you have heard me say before. if it is good enough for Wall Street. it is good enough for Main Street. By making health care more affordable. AHPs will expand access to quality health care for people for whom it is currently out of reach: uninsured working families. That is something my friends on both sides of the aisle can agree on. It is no wonder my AHP bill has had unwavering bipartisan support in the House for nearly a decade now. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make AHPs law this year. Small businesses need help now. Vote "yes" on the motion to recommit.
Date: 2007-01-10
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2. and in support of the Republican motion to recommit. Americans deserve a decent minimum wage. but we cannot simply ignore the -fact that somebody has to pay for it. In many cases. small businesses are the ones who must bear these costs. The Democratic bill we consider today gives absolutely. no consideration to small businesses at all. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. providing twothirds of new job creation. They cannot. however. simply create money out of thin air. A small business might have been struggling to pay health care premiums for its workers. With this resolution. they may well now be unable to do so. My Democratic colleagues frequently voice their strong support for small businesses. I dont understand why they cannot then acknowledge that this could be a burden and offer some help in the form of tax incentives. My vote for this motion to recommit and against the underlying bill is intended to send a message to the other body that a minimum wage increase is onlyhalf of the equation. I am confident the other body will work in more of a spirit of compromise and recognize the concerns I mention here today. Indeed. I look forward to considering legislation that does contain common sense provisions that will protect our small businesses competitiveness. I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit to and if necessary against final passage.
Date: 2007-01-10
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2. and in support of the Republican motion to recommit. " Americans deserve a decent minimum wage. but we cannot -simply ignore the fact that somebody has to pay for it. In many cases. small businesses are the ones who must bear these costs. The Democratic bill we consider today gives absolutely no consideration to small businesses at all. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. providing two thirds of new job creation. They cannot. however. simply create money out of thin air. A small business might have been struggling to pay health care premiums for its workers. With this resolution. they may well now be unable to do so. My Democratic colleagues frequently voice their strong support for small businesses. I dont understand Why they cannot then acknowledge that this could be a burden and offer some help in the form of tax incentives. My vote for this motion to recommit and against the underlying bill is intended to send a message to the other body that a minimum wage increase is only half of the equation. I am confident the other body will work in more of a spirit of compromise and recognize the concerns I mention here today. Indeed. I look forward to considering legislation that does contain common sense provisions that will protect our small businesses competitiveness. I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit to and if necessary against final passage.
Date: 2007-01-11
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in very strong support of H.R. 3. the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. I stand with 500 of Americas most respected research groups in support of this bill. The bottom line is that this bill is -about saving and improving lives. As a mother and grandmother. I fear that the untapped potential of stem cell research may be falling by the wayside. Let us remember. only when the embryo is implanted in a uterus to grow can life be sustained. Unless a couple has an option of donating remaining embryos. d failure to pay storage fees means the embryos will be disposed of as medical waste. Listen up. America. H.R. 3 gives us a choice. We can use the promise of embryonic stem cell research to save lives. or we can let that promise be thrown away. Millions of people around the country support this lifeaffirming and lifeenhancing research. People with cancer. Parkinsons and Alzheimers want this bill to pass. Your friends and neighbors and your constituents back home want this bill to .pass because it gives hope where hope doesnt exist now. It will let the research on stem cells continue under ethical guidelines and will provide millions of Americans suffering from debilitating and terminal diseases the hope that they need and want. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. And I certainly commend Ms. DEGETTE. as well as Mr. CASTLE. for their leadership on this bill.
Date: 2007-01-11
Speaker: TIM MURPHY (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Pennsylvania

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. Mr. Speaker. over 200 years ago. Thomas Jefferson told us: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that His justice cannot sleep forever." Although he was talking about the issues of the day. those words ring true for all of us in this Chamber because all of us want to do the right and the just thing. Our words here for or against embryonic stem cell research will not change what is true and just. We seek knowledge. we pray for wisdom. but our thinking does not make it so in one way or the other. I believe life begins at conception. Others do not. If we are to err on any side. on what side should we err? There are opinions on each side of this issue about when life begins. There are common opinions that we all must work together to help treat disease. There is confused information regarding what works. Research tells us adult stem cell research works. Amniotic stem cell research has been revealed to have much promise. Embryonic stem cells after 20 years of research tells us it does not. What is important to know is there is nothing in Federal law that limits academic research. We do not stop the States from pursuing research. We do not limit private companies. Research has not been hampered. And nothing is stopping research from treating disease. What we are all commonly pursuing is ways to treat disease. and our concern is how do we do this in a just and ethical way. When I would be involved in pursuing medical research studies at the University of Pittsburgh. we had to put forth our study in front of the human subjects review panel. They scrutinized research very carefully to make sure it did no harm to anyone. Sometimes what one researcher considered to be a small and innocuous risk. others said. no. you cannot get involved in that portion of research. Whatever it is. sometimes just evaluating the outcome of some treatment on a child that someone thought. as small as it might be. might be invasive. That was because we were guided by the ethical principle of "first do no harm." But here we are faced with recent studies that say amniotic stem cell research has tremendous promise. and for some reason we are rushing this week to say we must pass this bill on embryonic stem cell research when perhaps we should really be pursuing further scientific information so this House can do its job with hearings. with gathering information to give us the knowledge we need and pray for the wisdom we seek. I hope in all of this that we would continue to be guided by the idea of first doing no harm. and I would hope that we would also look at the fundamental basis of this bill that refers to the idea that these children would otherwise be discarded. I dont think that is a road we want to use.*
Date: 2007-01-11
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. a couple of numbers. there has been a suggestion an overwhelming number of the American people support the approach contained in this bill. In fact. the latest poll that was taken just last spring shows that only 39 percent support Federal funding of the approach found in this bill when they are informed that it requires the destruction of embryos. The CBS poll taken a year ago shows that only 37 percent of the American people support more Federal funds for more stem cell lines. Another number that is important is 700. That is the score of the diseases that have been successfully treated by the use of stem cells from adult and blood cord stem cells. zero of the number that have been treated successfully by embryonic stem cells. But more importantly. it seems to me as we deal with this issue. we should recall the words of Dr. Nigel Cameron. the founder of the journal called "Ethics and Medicine." when he said in his testimony: "Our membership in the human species is enough to distinguish the human embryo from all other laboratory artifacts." It is important for us to understand that human dignity is not reserved for adult human beings. And for us to say here at this time that human dignity is contingent upon arbitrary criteria such as size or location is a. profound judgment that we make. It is for that reason that President Clintons National Bioethics Advisory Commission decided not to permit stem cell research using IVF embryos after finding that "the derivation of stem cells from embryos remaining following fertility treatments is justifiable. only." it said. "only if no less problematic alternatives are available for advancing the research." We have seen the evidence compounding. even since we were here on this floor. just last year. that there are morally appropriate alternatives. Let us not follow in this direction.
Date: 2007-01-11
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of H.R. 3. We are all aware of the potential embryonic stem cells hold for mankind. It could very well be that these cells prove to be the Rosetta stone of medical researchallowing us to break the code on some of the worst afflictions: Alzheimers. Parkinsons. juvenile diabetes. We must acknowledge. however. that there is much we dont know about embryonic stem cells. and we are mistaken if we believe great cures are right around the corner. But we will never know either the true potential--or the dangers of stem cell related treatments if our scientists are overly constrained. I understand the concerns of those who question the ethics of embryonic stem cell research. and agree that we must not throw caution to the wind at the hint of miraculous cures. Indeed. left unconstrained. this type of research could lead to dangerous outcomes. That is a key reason why I support the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. It provides essential ethical guidelines to which federally funded researchers must adhere. It would be far preferable to have the Federal Government setting standards in this field rather than a hodgepodge of states and private entities. In fact. I believe that the National Institute of Healths rigorous ethical guidelines would prove to be more protective of human life than individual states or private entities. Remember. embryonic stem cell research is not illegal. and individual states have already moved forward on their own. It is crucial that the Federal Government lead the way. I supported President Bush when he announced his plan to allow federally funded research on 60 preexisting stem cell lines. But we now know that only 21 stem cell lines are available for research. These 21 have significant shortcomings that make them of dubious value. Federally funded U.S. researchers are at a technological disadvantage as they lack access to newer stem cell lines. This is causing concern that some of the top stem cell biologists will move into nonfederally funded research. or even move overseas. We should not allow this to happen. There are a great many difficult questions that attend this debate. However. I can not look in the eyes of a couple whose child is suffering from a debilitating disease and tell them that I am doing everything possible to stop their childs suffering without supporting this legislation. I believe expanded Federal funding of embryonic research is the right course to takea view shared by increasing numbers in both parties. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of I believe this bill is an important step in making the United States a leader in all facets of the stem cell issueboth scientifically and ethically.
Date: 2007-01-12
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to let Floridas seniors and all of Americas seniors know the scary truth about H.R. 4. the legislation to. quote. negotiate prescription drug prices in Medicare. While the rhetoric would lead you to believe that H.R. 4 is the same legislation from the past that I actually supported. kind of like GM said. it is not your fathers Oldsmobile. This is not the same bill as last year. Last years legislation. I believe. was based on sound policy. Unfortunately. the bill before us today was crafted kind of like in the middle of the night. with no real input from the other side. and it could be described as a baitandswitch game foisted on Americas seniors. As I said at the outset. I believe that this bill will actually harm Americas seniors. Supporters of the bill talk about negotiation. The government doesnt really negotiate. Let me give you an example. Here is the example of the Medicare part D. actually. the AARP plan. where over 100 great drugs are covered. However. if you look at when government does negotiate. it excludes some very important drugs to seniors. such as Crestor. Detrol. Evista. Flomax. Lipitor. Prevacid and Vytorin. How many seniors are on medicines such as Lipitor? A large number. It is absolutely necessary for lowering cholesterol. But when you start to negotiate. that array of drugs that are available is suddenly shrunk. Prescription drug access is not a partisan issue. My constituents know that I am not afraid to cross party lines to get things done. Throughout this entire 2week period. I voted for legislation. but I dont support this bill because it is a baitandswitch. I do not stand alone in this belief. Veterans organizations. mental health organizations and even CBO say it is a bad bill. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to let Floridas seniors know the scary truth about H.R. 4. legislation to negotiate prescription drug prices in Medicare. While the rhetoric from the other side would lead you to believe that H.R. 4 is the same legislation debated in the past. I rise to tell you that H.R. 4 is not your fathers Oldsmobile. In the 109th Congress. I supported bipartisan legislation introduced by Representative Jo ANN EMERSON that would have allowed HHS to negotiate prescription drug prices for Medicare.
Date: 2007-01-12
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. for all the efforts of the proponents of H.R. 4 to confuse this issue. it truly is a simple one. basically a choice between hotair promises and reallife facts. Today. some people are claiming we need government negotiation in order to increase the pool of Medicare beneficiaries trying to buy affordable drugs. Well. unfortunately. that math just doesnt add up. The pharmacy benefit managers negotiating drug prices on behalf of seniors enrolled in part D are the very same PBMs going to bat for tens of millions of the under65 population. including those of us enrolled in the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. So if we took the Medicare population out from under that huge umbrella. they actually lose bargaining power. not gain it. Another clain that is being made is that the Secretary will not have to limit the formulary in order to achieve promised savings. Mr. Speaker. if you believe that. I have got some oceanfront property in Arizona I would like to sell you. Let us take a look at the VA plan as an example since it is being touted as a stellar illustration of government negotiating. The VA formulary has 1.300 drugs compared to more than 4.000 for Medicare. And all the Medicare plans protect drugs for the most vulnerable. including drugs that treat cancer. AIDS. and mental illness. That is why H.R. 4 is opposed by the National Alliance on Mental Illness. the ALS Association. and others. Finally. some are saying this bill will provide outstanding savings. Not to let the facts get in the way of a good story. but our own Congressional Budget Office says the effects of this bill will not save money. Drug prices have fallen every year of part Ds existence because of one thing: competition. And it is working great. As we say in Texas. "If it aint broke. dont fix it." This debate boils down to a choice between government promises and free market results. I urge Members to vote against H.R. 4.
Date: 2007-01-12
Speaker: DAVID DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Tennessee

Thank you. Congresswoman BLACKBURN. thank you for your leadership. your friendship through down through the years. You have been a great friend of mine in the State General Assembly. and it is an honor to be on this distinguished floor with you tonight.
Date: 2007-01-18
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Reserving my right to object. Mr. Speaker. and I may not object. but I dont have a copy of what the gentleman. my friend. was talking about. If the gentleman would explain the motion. because I was not shown a copy before.
Date: 2007-01-18
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr.. Speaker. one of the reasons why we are so concerned about and opposed to this process of having closed out all of the Members from
Date: 2007-01-18
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
Date: 2007-01-19
Speaker: SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO (republican)
Chamber: H

who spoke earlier. It is a good piece of legislation. It is. unfortunately. needed. But it should have been in place before. It might have helped to prevent some of the events we had this past year. So I strongly support this legislation. I urge all of our colleagues to vote for it. May we all have a better Page Board and a better Page Program and continue one of the most outstanding programs that a young person in this Nation can participate in. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2007-01-22
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker "1 rise today to express my disappointment with the majoritys efforts today to attempt to restore the public trust in government. The Nations Capital has been hammered by corruptionrelated political scandals in recent years. and it is imperative that we take action to respond to these scandals. But H.R 476. the Congressional Pension Accountability Act. is little more than a trophy that the majority can hold up to claim they restored public trust in the Nations Capital. In a nutshell. the legislation gives Members of Congress who are convicted of a public corruption related crime an additional slap on the wrist by preventing them from counting their time served as a Member of Congress toward their federal retirement. This stands in stark contrast to much stronger. bipartisan legislation that the Committee on Government Reform marked up last February to crack down on public officials convicted of betraying the public trust. The Federal Pension Forfeiture Act of 2006. approved by unanimous consent by the Committee last year. would have .denied federal retirement benefits to any Member. congressional employee or political appointee in the Executive Branch convicted of a crime related to public corruption punishable by more than one year imprisonment for an act committed while the individual was employed by the federal government. Unlike H.R. 476. last years proposal would have permanently denied a pension from an official convicted of a corruptionrelated crime rather than simply limiting time that counted toward the officials retirement. Additionally and most importantly. last years proposal covered not only Members of Congress but also political appointees in the Executive Branch. After all. federal officials in both branches of government equally share the blame for the fact that the public no longer trusts public officials. Its unclear to me why the majority would want to only address half of the issue when we have an opportunity to address the issue in its entirety. Unfortunately this is the first opportunity I have had to raise this concern since the legislation was taken straight to the floor rather than receiving the benefit of committee consideration. Regardless of process. I fear that this legislation will do little if anything to restore any of the publics trust in the federal government. Therefore. it is with regret that I will vote in favor of this legislation. and I do so only because no other option has been presented to the House.