macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2012-05-09
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I join with my colleagues in recognizing the crisis that is being faced by the postal offices across America. both urban and rural. We look forward to bringing a contingent of workers and postal persons from around the country to this Congress to urge it to move forward quickly and utilize the Senate proposal. At the same time. I am deeply saddened by a reconciliation budget proposal by my friends on the other side of the aisle thats going to cut the Social Services Block Grant. its going to cut Medicaid. its going to cut Meals on Wheels. As a former chairperson of the Interfaith Ministries in Houston. Texas. what a sad day to cut Meals on Wheels. Today and this week is Teacher Appreciation Week. and I salute them. They are great and grand as they teach our children that they can reach for the sky. That is why today. the Congressional Childrens Caucus will host Lee Hirsch. the producer and director of the movie "Bully." Eighteen million children have been bullied. like Asher Brown. who lost his life. like a 13yearold Girl Scout who said that shes been bullied since age 5. Today. I ask my colleagues to join me at 1:30 in 2237 for a press conference saying there should be a national call to ending bullyingintervention. and at the same time to come at 2 oclock to see the movie. Third floor. Library of Congress. Madison Building. There must be. and I call for. a national solution to bullying in our childrens lives.
Date: 2012-05-09
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of todays legislation to reauthorize the ExportImport Bank and appreciate the work done by Leaders HOYER and CANTOR to bring this bill to the floor today. As amended. the Securing American Jobs Through Exports Act will reauthorize the ExportImport Bank for three years and incrementally increase the assistance it provides foreign buyers of American products to $140 billion by fiscal year 2014. which is roughly in line with projected demand. This bipartisan agreement is good for manufacturers. good for jobs and good for taxpayers. It enjoys broad backing from industry and labor. and it deserves our support.
Date: 2012-05-09
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of our Nations small businesses and manufacturers. and call on this House to vote in favor of H.R. 2072. the Securing American Jobs Through Exports Act of This legislation will reauthorize the ExportImport Bank of the United States. or ExIm Bank. for three years and raise its lending authority to $140 billion. Founded during the Great Depression. the ExIm Bank. has served American businesses for nearly 80 years through its financial support of our Nations exportersboth large and small. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has found that small businesses make up 87 percent of ExIm Bank transactions. In Fiscal Year 2011. the ExIm Bank supported 290.000 exportrelated American jobs by providing more than $32 billion in financing to more than 3.600 U.S. companies nationwide. Since 1934. ExIm Bank has provided assistance to more than $474 billion of U.S. exports. Over the past five years. the ExIm Bank has provided businesses in the 29th District of Texas with over $407 million in export financing alone. It is important to note that the work of the Bank is done at no cost to the taxpayer. It is selfsustaining and covers all of its operating expenses and loan loss reserves through fees the Bank charges users. In fact. the Bank normally makes a profit and has returned nearly $2 billion to the Treasury since 2008. During this time of economic uncertainty and growing international competition. it is imperative that Congress pass H.R. 2072 and reauthorize the ExIm Bank. To do otherwise would unnecessarily endanger tens of thousands of American jobs.
Date: 2012-05-09
Speaker: AL GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the chairman. I thank the ranking member. and I thank all who support this piece of legislation. This is but a reaffirmation of our support to our ally Israel. I think that it gives us an opportunity to make it clear that Israel has the complete support of the United States of America. Israel has been one of the beacons of democracy in the neighborhood. It does have elections. and it does have opportunities for government to change. These are the kinds of things that we value in this country: the rights of people to make a difference in their own lives. Aside from this. we have a duty. when one country has been threatened with complete elimination. to do what we can to prevent this. I think that this is a part of that prevention that will help make a difference.
Date: 2012-05-09
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. I rise in support of H.R. 4133. as a cosponsor of the bill and to encourage my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. Since the Truman Administration. we as a Nation have worked with the people of Israel to establish and support a close economic. cultural and strategic partnership based on a common respect for democracy and a commitment to the goal of creating a lasting peace in the Middle East. Today. that partnership is among the strongest shared by any two countries. Israel exists in a geographical region of paramount economic and strategic importance to the United States and the American people recognize that ensuring a safe and secure Israel is in the longterm national security interests of our country. In support of the Israeli Governments efforts to protect its people. the U.S. has helped Israel develop a missile defense system. we have committed ourselves to the task of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. and the U.S. has led the way against attempts to use international forums to delegitimize the State of Israel. It is in a similar vein that we consider H.R. 4133 today. Among other things. this measure would allocate additional weaponry and munitions for Israel in the wake of the withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq. expand Israels authority to make purchases under the Foreign Military Financing program on a commercial basis. encourage an expanded role for Israel within NATO. and require the President to submit a report on the status of Israels qualitative military edge in light of current trends and instability in the region. By expressing our support for the economic and strategic security of Israel at this critical time in its history. we send an unambiguous message about our unshakable commitment to the security of Israel.
Date: 2012-05-09
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Madam Speaker. I rise in support of H.R. 4133. the United StatesIsrael Enhanced Security Cooperation Act. This bipartisan resolution reaffirms the American peoples enduring and close relationship with the State of Israel. our partner in peace and prosperity in the Middle East. This bill performs three main functions: One. expresses the sense of Congress that the U.S. should take actions to assist the defense of Israel with advanced missile defense systems and intelligence sharing to improve counterterrorism and to protect it against Irans growing nuclear threat. Two. requires the President to submit reports to Congress on the status of Israels military edge in light of current trends and political instability in the region. Three. extends the Administrations authority to provide loan guarantees to Israel through FY2015. The current loan guarantee program. begun in 2003. has served both nations well. Israel has never defaulted on its loans and the Congressional Budget Office has scored this provision at no cost. Madam Speaker. I have been to Israel on many occasions. most recently last summer. Every time I have an opportunity to visit. I am reminded of the close ties between our two nations and the strong affinity and appreciation the Israeli people have towards the American peoples friendship and support. My time in Israel has also served as a reminder of the dangerous world that the people of Israel face on a daily basis. from rocket attacks from Hezbollah and Hamas. to threats of nuclear attack by Iran. to suicide bombings within their own cities and neighborhoods. It is important that this Chamber say with a strong. unified voice that we stand with Israel during these difficult times. As cochair of the Democratic Israel Working Group. I call on Members from both sides of the aisle to vote in support of this bipartisan resolution.
Date: 2012-05-09
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Madam Chair. I demand a recorded vote. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII. further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina will be postponed.
Date: 2012-05-09
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Madam Chair. I want to thank my colleague for yielding me time. and I want to thank Chairman WOLF for his tireless dedication to maintaining our Nations manned space flight capabilities. For many years. we worked together. I represent part of Houston and Pasadena. Texas. and were proud of the Johnson Space Center. The work that is accomplished there advances our Nation in space through mission control. training. and testing. One such testing facility is arcjet. This facility ensures that the material on the outside of the vehicles reentering our atmosphere can withstand the heat that is created. Its a critical capability if we ever want to send humans in space again. The Johnson Space Center arcjet facility is being closed by NASA. I be lieve the decision is premature. Weve received documentation indicating the experts within NASA. from their own Office of Safety and Mission Assurance. believe that the closure would negatively impact the safety and diminish NASAs inhouse protection capabilities. Confronted with tough questions on this. NASA has decided to move ahead with their plans. Theyre unwilling to delay it. and they are even unwilling to further study it. Chairman WOLF. Im asking for your help as were confronted with a NASA that is pushing ahead despite our inquiries and despite their own internal disagreements. This is not just a local issue. and Im afraid that the closure of arcjet at Johnson Space Center would forever undermine our Nations space program. and I appreciate any assistance you could provide us.
Date: 2012-05-09
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Date: 2012-05-09
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio who just spoke on the floor of the House. Hes an appropriator. and he sees this litany of limitations as being challenging. I know that Members are probably drafting some more limitations as we speak. and I certainly respect their prerogative. I would just add this point: as I listened to my good friend from Iowawho I know is certainly a civil libertarian and believes in individual rights. and I would imagine the proponent of this amendment does as wellI would ask the proponent of the amendment. as he has listened to the debate. to simply withdraw the amendment. There are several factors that would contribute to that: one. the query that was made by the gentleman from Massachusetts as to whether the amendment even does anything. But as well. if we look at the 10th Amendmentwhich my friends on the other side of the aisle have always paraded before usthat even though there is a Federal law. the DOMA law. that there are matters that should be left to the States. As recounted by the gentleman from Colorado. there are many different positions on this issue throughout the different States. Some have positions. some do not. Now we have an amendment that simply seems to deal with actions stated by the executive on this very day. My friend from Iowa wanted to speak about what the President has said and what he has not said. What are we discussing here. the views of the President or the actions of the executive? The actions of the executive. as has been stated. are their prerogative. And clearly. there have been no actions by the government that should be contravened. More importantly. I believe in the civil liberties of all people and the rights of all people. I believe that this amendment undermines the rights of all people and would graciously ask this Member to look at it from both the perspective of individual rights. of civil liberties. of the 10th Amendment. and whether or not the executive has done anything that relates to his amendment. I. lastly. will say that the President of the United States. who commented today. has every right to speak either his conscience. his heart. or his mind. An amendment on the floor attempting to question that has no relationship to speech today versus actions which need to be contravened. There are no actions to be contravened. so I ask the gentleman to respectfully withdraw his amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2012-05-09
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the distinguished gentleman from California. Im not sure if he misinterpreted comments that have been made on the floor of the House. but I will just speak to this point. That is too broad a statement to say about the present Department of Justice when every single day lawyers in the Department of Justice. including the Attorney General. go out and defend the laws of this land. And so Id ask the gentleman to reflect on that broad statement because that is not accurate. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Date: 2012-05-10
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Thank you. The Democrats have a substitute amendment that would replace the sequester in a different way. It would prevent the acrosstheboard cuts from happening to defense and the nondefense programs. So theres an agreement that that meatax approach is the wrong way. We have an alternative. The gentleman just talked about how we have this great debate of ideas on the floor of the House. I have a very simple question: Why are we not going to get an upordown vote on our idea on how we would replace the sequester in a balanced way?
Date: 2012-05-10
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I dont want to take up all your time. but I would like to make the point that what our substitute does is. dollar for dollar. replace the sequester. which is what our Republican colleagues have said is the object of this effort. which is to make sure that we dont have the meatax approach. I would just note that the gentleman said that one of the reasons that were not going to have an opportunity to vote on ours is because it doesnt comply exactly with the rules. In bringing the Republican bill to the floor today. Im reading right here on the report. the committee report. you waived three rules. You waived three rules. and yet you cant allow an upordown vote on a substitute amendment. You know that you have it within the power to allow our substitute. just as you waived these three rules.
Date: 2012-05-10
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. and thank him for his leadership on efforts to ensure that those families who are struggling most in our country continue to have access to food and nutrition. and that children in our country continue to have access to health care. And thats what this debate is all about. because we do have an alternative. There is no disagreement on two things: Number one. we need to reduce our deficit in this country in a credible way. number two. the meatax approach of the sequester is not a smart way to do it. So how should we go about reducing our deficit? Well. we propose to do it in the same balanced way that every bipartisan commission that has looked at this issue has recommendedthrough a combination of difficult cuts. And I would remind everybody that just last August we cut a trillion dollars through a combination of cuts as well as cuts to tax breaks for special interests and by asking the wealthiest people in this country. people who are making $1 million a year. to contribute a little bit more toward deficit reduction.
Date: 2012-05-10
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Absolutely. Im glad the gentleman asked the question. SimpsonBowles. RivlinDomenici. they proposed an approach which was about $3 in cuts to $1 in revenue. depending on the accounting rules. Weve already enacted $1 trillion in cuts. 100 percent in cuts. You voted for that. I voted for that. 100 percent cuts. What this does is. for the next 1 year. we do another $30 billion in cutsa little over that. actuallyand then we get about $80 billion through closing loopholes. For example. we say that the big oil companies dont need taxpayer subsidies to encourage them to go drill. Theyve already testified. their chief executives. they dont need that. Theyre making plenty right now. We also say that millionaires should pay the same effective tax rate as the people who work for them. And if you take that approach. frankly. with the trillion dollars in cuts weve already made. we are still cutting a lot more than the bipartisan groups recommended compared to the revenue. So our ratio of cuts to revenue is much higher because those bipartisan groups. they recommended that trillion dollars in cuts. and we adopted that on a bipartisan basis. What they are not doing. what youre not doing. is taking the other part of their recommendation. frankly. which is to say lets close some of these outrageous tax loopholes for the purpose of deficit reduction. And because 98 percent of our House Republican colleagues have signed this pledge saying that they wont take one penny of-
Date: 2012-05-10
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

You wont ask one penny more for people making over $1 million a year to help reduce our deficit. not one penny. And the math is pretty simple after that. because you ask nothing of them. your budget whacks everyone else. Thats why your budget ends the Medicare guarantee. thats why you cut $800 billion out of Medicaid. and thats why. in your sequester proposal here. you whack programs that help the most vulnerable. struggling families. Lets talk about what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said your proposal would do: 22 million households with children would see their food and nutrition support cut under the SNAP reductions. 300.000 kids will no longer get the school lunch program. 300.000 kids will lose their health coverage under the childrens health insurance program. Those are the decisions you have to make because you dont want to ask the oil companies to give up their taxpayer subsidy. We say the American people would make a different choice. We have that different choice in the substitute amendment. That substitute amendment would prevent those cuts to the Defense Department. It would prevent cuts to NIH and biomedical research. But it would prevent those cuts without whacking seniors and childrens health programs. It would do it in a balanced way. We say we dont need the direct payments to agricultural businesses. These are payments that go to ag businesses whether theyre making money or not. The spigot is on. We cut those. you dont in your proposal thats before us today. Why not? Instead. you cut the food and nutrition programs. So we think the right approach is the balanced approach that every bipartisan group that has gotten together has recommended. Because 98 percent of our Republican colleagues have signed this pledge saying theyre not going to ask the folks at the very top to put in one penny. one dime more. youre smacking everybody else. We dont think thats the right way to go. We agree we should reduce the deficit. And we eliminate the sequester. but just in a different way.
Date: 2012-05-10
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I just would like to respond to the chairman of the Budget Committee in terms of the ratio of cuts to revenue. I think the gentleman will recall that one of the recommendations that the bipartisan commission made was the trillion dollars in cuts that we made as part of the Budget Control Act. that was 100 percent cuts. If you take that into account. the reality is what weve done so far with our proposal is 92 percent cuts. 8 percent revenue. and with that revenue generated by closing those tax loopholes I talked about earlier. With that. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida
Date: 2012-05-10
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in opposition to the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act. the second phase in the Republicans Pathway to Poverty plan. This bill. once again. fails to reach any measure of fairness and shared responsibility. All of us agree that the implementation of sequestration would be a damaging. harmful approach to take in an effort to achieve deficit reduction. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that. instead of taking a balanced approach. the Republicans would replace sequestration with tax breaks to millionaires and special interests while ending the Medicare guarantee. slashing investments that strengthen our economy. and shredding the social safety net. Not surprisingly. important provisions of the Affordable Care Act are in their sights. The Prevention and Public Health Fund was an unprecedented investment in our Nations health and wellbeing. particularly the health of Americas women and children. By providing funding for vital cancer and infection screenings. modernizing vaccine systems. and the fight against epidemics like obesity and diabetes. this fund truly invests in our Nations health. and it will provide savings down the line by helping to catch afflictions early. By seeking to undermine the Affordable Care Act. the Republican reconciliation bill would eliminate funding for hundreds of thousands of lifesaving screenings. all to score political points with their extreme base. Mr. Speaker. just a few years ago. when I was 41 years old. I found a lump in my breast. which was confirmed to be cancer in a series of screenings. including a clinical screening just like the ones that this fund provides. These screenings saved my life. But this bill would prevent 326.000 women from having access to the same lifesaving screenings that I did. It will prevent an estimated 10.300 women from being diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer in its early stages. and it may cost them their lives. Furthermore. this bill slashes funding for screening for birth defects. developmental disabilities. and hearing loss in children. How can any of us. in good conscience. cut funding by cutting investments in childrens health? Frankly. as a mom of three young kids. Im stunned because I think its just common sense that you dont pay down a deficit our children didnt create by compromising their health. Our constituents deserve a balanced approach to deficit reduction. The Republicans approach would deny women like me access to screenings that save lives and deny children the screenings they need so we can keep them healthy. Its unacceptable. and I ask colleagues with a conscience to vote down this terrible bill.