macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2014-03-06
Speaker: AL GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. today I was unable to vote in Washington. DC and missed the following votes: 1) Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2641 and H.R. 2824. Had I been present. I would have voted "no" on this bill. 2) H. Res. 501Rule providing for consideration of both H.R. 2641 and H.R. 2824. Had I been present. I would have voted "no" on this bill. 3) Smith (TX)/Schweikert Amendment to H.R. 3826Had I been present. I would have voted "no" on this amendment. Tierney Tipton Titus Tonko Tsongas Turner Upton Valadao Van Hollen Vargas Veasey Vela Velazquez Visclosky Wagner Walberg Walden Walorski Walz Wasserman Schultz Waters Waxman Webster (FL) Welch Wenstrup Whitfield Williams Wilson (FL) Wilson (SC) Wittman Wolf Womack Woodall Yarmuth Yoder Young (IN) Rooney Sanford Stockman Weber (TX) Westmoreland Yoho Young (AK) Negrete McLeod Olson Pastor (AZ) Poe (TX) Schneider Schwartz 4) Capps/McNerney Amendment to H.R. 3826Had I been present. I would have voted "yes" on this amendment. 5) Schakowsky/Lowenthal Amendment to H.R. 3826Had I been present. I would have voted "yes" on this amendment. 6) Waxman Amendment to H.R. 3826Had I been present. I would have voted "yes" on this amendment. 7) Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 3826. Had I been present. I would have voted "yes" on the motion to recommit. 8) Final Passage of H.R. 3826Electricity Security and Affordability Act. Had I been present. I would have voted "no" on this bill. 9) Motion to Table the Fudge Privileged Resolution. Had I been present. I would have voted "no" on this motion to table. 10) Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 2641Had I been present. I would have voted "yes" on this amendment. 11) McKinley Amendment to H.R. 2641Had I been present. I would have voted "no" on this amendment. 12) Nadler Amendment to H.R. 2641Had I been present. I would have voted "yes" on this amendment. 13) Johnson (GA) Amendment to H.R. 2641Had I been present. I would have voted "yes" on this amendment. 14) Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 2641Had I been present. I would have voted "yes" on the motion to recommit. 15) Final Passage of H.R. 2641Had I been present. I would have voted "no" on this bill. 16) H.R. 4152To Provide for the Cost of Loan Guarantees for UkraineHad I been present. I would have voted "yes" on this bill.
Date: 2014-03-11
Speaker: NEGRETE MCLEOD (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. today is World Plumbing Day. It is easy to take for granted that we can simply turn on a facet and enjoy clean water. however. we should not neglect the importance that clean water conveyance presents. It is imperative that we keep improving water infrastructure through sound legislation to guarantee every citizen access to clean water. It is important to support and collaborate with groups such as the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials. who for almost 90 years have been developing codes and standards that are used to protect systems around the world as well as ensuring Americas public health for our communities. On this World Plumbing Day. I recognize how quality. efficient plumbing systems and those highly trained professionals who work in the industry save our country money and precious resources while enhancing our quality of living. thereby keeping people safe and healthy each and every day.
Date: 2014-03-12
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R 4138. The ENFORCE The Law Act of 2014 and the underlying bill. H.R. 4138 purports to provide a mechanism for one House of Congress to enforce the "take care" clause in article II. section 3 of the United States Constitution. which requires the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." The bill authorizes either chamber of Congress to bring a civil action against the executive branch for failure to faithfully execute existing laws. My colleagues on the other side argue that lawsuits by Congress to force the administration to enforce federal laws will prevent the president from exceeding his constitutional authority. But the Supreme Court has constantly held that the exercise of executive discretion being taken by President Obama is within the presidents powers under the Constitution. That is why I offered an amendment to the bill that simply protects the ability of the Executive Branch to comply with judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution or Federal laws. It is hard to believe that I would even need an amendment which instructs the Executive Branch that it is okay toENFORCE THE LAW. If separationofpowers principles require anything. it is that each branch must respect its constitutional role. When a court issues a decision interpreting the Constitution or a federal law. the other branches must abide by the decision. The Executive Branchs ability to fulfill its obligation to comply with judicial decisions should not be hampered by a civil action by Congress pursuant to this bill. Basic respect for separation of powers requires adoption of this amendment. In our constitutional democracy. taking care that the laws are executed faithfully is a multifaceted notion. And it is a wellsettled principle that our Constitution imposes restrictions on Congress legislative authority. so that the faithful execution of the Laws may present occasions where the President declines to enforce a congressionally enacted law because he must enforce the Constitutionwhich is the law of the land. Additionally. H.R. 4138. The ENFORCE Act. has problems with standing. separation of powers. and allows broad powers of discretion incompatible with notions of due process. The legislation would permit one House of Congress to file a lawsuit seeking declaratory and other relief to compel the President to faithfully execute the law. Any such decision would be reviewable only by the Supreme Court. These are critical problems. First. Congress is unlikely to be able to satisfy the requirements of Article III standing. which the Supreme Court has held that the party bringing suit have been personally injured by the challenged conduct. In the wide array of circumstances in which the bill would authorize a House of Congress to sue the president. that House would not has suffered any personal injury sufficient to satisfy Article IIls standing requirement in the absence of a complete nullification of ay legislators votes. I ask my colleagues to reject this legislation. The material previously referred to by Mr. McGOVERN is as follows:
Date: 2014-03-12
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chair. let me thank the ranking member for his kindness. the managers of this legislation. and all of my colleagues that have come to the floor to try to seek truth. We have often said. Truth to power. The Constitution is the powerful document that all of us abide by. We take an oath of office to do so. Going through the markup. as we do in regular order. we as the loyal opposition over and over again try to query what was the truth of this legislation. what was the purpose of it. and how was it going to be valid in light of the Constitution and the powers that are inured to the Presidency. The Presidency has executive powers. and those powers were on the basis of his or her ability to work with the three branches of government. Now we have legislation that wants to do a number of things. like abolish the powers of the Presidencyabolish them because you disagree with policy. Believe me. all of us would like standing to challenge anything. We understand that when we made that attempt on several occasions. the courts have said. You dont have standing. it is to the people. So now we want to orchestrate that so that rather than the legislative process. which is given to the Congress. we desire to go and put ourselves in place on immigration reform. on protecting the environment. on questions of justice. whether it has to be ensuring that the election is unimpeded. whether it has to do with correcting policies that need to be corrected. We now want to get in front of that rather than doing it through the legislative process. I am glad my colleagues have spoken about immigration. because one of the bills that did not come forward was to abolish a position that the administration has every right to utilize dealing with advocacy for undocumenteds who are in a detention center who are not charged particularly with criminal acts. We already know that there is a veto threat. and it is a veto threat not for the present President of the United States but to uphold the Constitution. So the charge is that there is no trust in this President and there is a violation of the ConstitutionI can assure you that people beyond this body would raise the issue of constitutionality if it was real. It is not. There are some professors who want to write a variety of law review papers and want to talk about how far we are exceeding our powers. These are purely addressing the question of the law and making sure that the law is applied fairly.
Date: 2014-03-12
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Add. at the end of the bill. the following: (d) LIMITATION. Nothing in this Act limits or otherwise affects the ability of the executive branch to comply with judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution or Federal laws. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 511. the gentlewoman from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Date: 2014-03-12
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. frankly. maybe I should offer a good thanks to the distinguished members of the majority. the Republicans. my chairman and others. for giving us an opportunity to have a deliberative constitutional discussion that reinforces the sanctity of this Nation and how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years operating under a Constitution that clearly defines what is constitutional and what is not.
Date: 2014-03-12
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Let me make this point. and I will yield 15 seconds to the distinguished gentlelady from California. But I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his eloquence. Obviously. he is from the great State of Thomas Jefferson. and I certainly am from the great law school of Thomas Jefferson. the University of Virginia School of Law. But let me just say that what this bill intends to do. the power the bill purports to assign to Congress to sue the President over whether he has properly discharged his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. exceedshe knows it exceeds any constitutional boundaries. He is challenging the President on decisions that they dont agree with that are political. They dont agree with deferred adjudication. They dont agree with the DREAM Act youngsters. They dont agree that we should move forward on immigration reform. They are challenging him on his right to exert his power. I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from California .
Date: 2014-03-12
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. as I indicated. this is a political fight. I thought we had settled that fight with Baker v. Carr. a case that hails from 1962. Baker stands for the proposition that courts are not equipped to adjudicate political questions. and that it is impossible to decide such questions. Now our friends want to give Congress the right to expedite their lawsuit over the average citizen on a political question. first in a threejudge court. and then right to the Supreme Court of the United States. while the American people suffer because they want that particular position. It is a political question because it is the Republicans who want to be able to move beyond the authority given in the Constitution. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan .
Date: 2014-03-12
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for that very astute analysis. and I want to conclude. if I might. by saying that I respect the separation of powers. and I understand what my colleague said. and Mr. CONYERS is very right. This amendment does not gut the legislation. but I understand what my colleagues are saying. What I would argue is that we all want the same thingthat the authority of the President remains that. the Congress. and the judiciary. and there is no exceeding. I believe we can do it in a better way. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2014-03-12
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I demand a recorded vote. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII. further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.
Date: 2014-03-12
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to H.R. 3973. The Faithful Execution of the Law Act of 2014. One of the areas in which the Executive Branch should be least hamstrung is in its ability to respond to imminent threats to national security or public safety and the Jackson Lee Amendment prevents the President from being shackled by Congressional litigation from protecting America. A fundamental role of government is to ensure citizens physical security. While government should not be given unfettered power in the name of security. neither should we allow a lawsuit by Congress to hamper the President in responding to imminent threats. H.R 3973 expands upon preexisting reporting requirements. Already. Madam Speaker. under 28 U.S.C. Section 53013(a)(1)(A). the Attorney General is required to report to Congress whenever any officer of the Department of Justice (including the Attorney General himself) "establishes or implements a formal or informal policy to refrain" from (i) enforcing any federal statute. rule. or regulation on the grounds that the provision is unconstitutional. or (ii) enforcing or complying with a final decision of any court that interprets or applies the Constitution or a statute. rule. or regulation. H.R. 3973 would expand 530D(a)(1)(A) in three respects. First. it would require the Attorney General to report on nonenforcement policies adopted by federal officers outside of the Department of Justice. Second. it would extend reporting requirements to all nonenforcement policies. regardless of their rationale. Third. it would require the Attorney General to specify the grounds for declining to enforce any federal statute. rule. or regulation in his report to Congress. To summarize Madam Speaker. the U.S. Code would look like the following: (a) REPORT. (1) IN GENERAL. The Attorney General shall submit to the Congress a report of any instance in which the Attorney General or any officer of the Department of Justice or any other Federal officer (A) establishes or implements a formal or informal policy to refrain (i) from enforcing. applying. or administering any provision of any Federal statute. rule. regulation. program. policy. or other law whose enforcement. application. or administration is within the responsibility of the Attorney General or such officer and state the grounds for such policy on the grounds that such provision is unconstitutional.... Again. Madam Speaker. an area in which the Executive Branch should be least hamstrung is in its ability to respond to imminent threats to national security or public safety. which is the amendment I would have offered in the Rules Committee last night. A fundamental role of government is to ensure citizens physical security. While government should not be given unfettered power in the name of security. neither should we allow a lawsuit by Congress to hamper the President in responding to important matters of state. I urge my colleagues to reject this Bill.
Date: 2014-03-13
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to bring attention to the congressional digital day of action on the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act. 27 million women have access to insurancecovered contraceptives. Nearly 2 million of those women come from my home State of Texas. Unfortunately. Hobby Lobby. the largest importer in my district. asserts that employers should control the choices of women to have access to contraception and preventive care. However. 70 percent of Americans disagree with that heinous assertion. While individuals have their own religious beliefs and consciences. businesses that employ thousands of hardworking Americans do not. The implication that a boss could potentially decide what health care treatments any employee can receive are more farreaching than just contraceptive care. What can be next? An employer denying coverage of routine immunizations or vaccinations because of religious belief? It is offensive that an employer believes they have the right to make these personal decisions for their employees. I urge my colleagues to stand up and fight against this discriminatory action taken by Hobby Lobby.
Date: 2014-03-13
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman very much. Might I make a March plea in this March madness? Cant we all get along and work together on important items such as water rights and the SGR? I rise. first of all. to make it very clear that I am a strong supporter of providing adequate compensation to our physicians who serve Medicare patients. It is important for our seniors to know that Medicare will be there when they need it. But it is equally important that there are physicians who are willing to attend to them without going broke. Let it be very clear that I believe my record has been extremely strong on the idea of making sure the benefits for seniors are not cut. The misrepresentation that the Affordable Care Act cuts Medicare benefits is not true. Now we have the sustainable growth rate. which we had bipartisan support for. and all of a sudden we have a poison pill of a selfexecuting rule. which was challenged in the Rules Committee. to take money from the Affordable Care Act to allegedly help the doctors. Every doctor I speak to wants a permanent fix for the SGR. There are a number of suggestions made in the other body. somewhat unpleasant. but we were willing to look at those particular suggestions. As with any business. medical clinics and physician offices have payrolls to meet. bills to pay. and expenses to meet as they become due. Why are we playing with them when. in essence. we know that this is not going anywhere? Why are we not taking care of these physicians who spend 8 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to work to gain a degree because they are healers. they believe in it. they want to serve the public. Now. rather than have a bipartisan billin the spirit of St. Patricks Dayand be able to come together and work together. no. we have a bill that poses a serious problem. I oppose the rule because it corrupts what would otherwise be a strongly supported bipartisan bill to sustain physician reimbursement rates. and it is another attempt. again by our friends on the other side. to disregard and mislead the public about the Affordable Care Act. Let me clearly say that 11 groups representing the Nations seniorsdoctors and advocatessent a letter to congressional leaders urging the House to reject the Republicans toxic doc fix. the GOPs 51st vote to repeal. From the letter: The undersigned organizations representing Medicare beneficiaries and providers appreciate the bipartisan. bicameral work done to repeal the Sustainable Growth Rate. SGR. and reform the Medicare reimbursement system. The current effort to link. however. SGR reform with changes to the Affordable Care Act injects partisan politics in bipartisan legislation. Access to health care for more than 50 million Americans with Medicare is a serious matter. We should not schedule a vote that does not take seriously the idea of making sure our doctors get sufficient compensation. The other wrongheaded approach to this is there are no amendments being allowed. No amendments. Mr. Speaker. A closed rule. I just saw some documentation of how many closed rules we have had in this House.
Date: 2014-03-13
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. this happens to be Womens History Month. I will continue to salute the dynamic women of this Nation. I rise today as a founder and cochair of the Congressional Childrens Caucus and indicate to my colleagues that I believe we are overdue for naming children as our number one priority. Working with First Focus. I intend to introduce a childrens budget for the needs of our children. We have left children behind. Many times. the issues around children are discussed in a partisan way. Who wants early childhood education? Who wants universal preK or aroundtheclock child care? In actuality. the consumers and beneficiaries of funding for those very important issues are our children. We should give them the security. protection. and resources to prevent child abuse and for bringing families together and providing intervention for families that are troubled that result in not only child abuse. but violence against these children. What about the best education they can have? What about the best health care they can have? Mr. Speaker. children are our number one priority. I truly believe that a childrens budget in the United States of America is long overdue. Join me on the childrens budget.
Date: 2014-03-13
Speaker: CAROLYN B. MALONEY (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: New York

Mr. Speaker. I thank all of you for joining us this evening. I am delighted to be here to speak about the importance of the National Womens History Museum. I am so pleased to be joined by some of my colleagues who will speak about outstanding women from their States and in the history of our country. women who deserve to be recognized in this museum. First. I would like to thank my colleague in this effort to create a national museum for women on or near The Mall. She is MARSHA BLACKBURN. from the great State of Tennessee. whose passion and unyielding commitment to making the National Womens History Museum a reality is unrivaled. She is a godsend. an inspiration. and a great friend to women. and I thank her so much for her extraordinary leadership and for the announcement I hope she will make tonight about March 25moving our legislation forward. Women stand on historical quicksand. With each step we take forward. the steps behind us disappear. Women have to recreate the wheel with every generation. Think about what is taught in our American history classes. It is mostly written by men and focuses on their experiences. As my daughter said: It is usually about a bunch of wars between men. Where are the stories about the women? In large part. women are invisible. History is empowering. It shapes who we are and provides role models to guide us. We need a museum for half the generation. half the populationwomen. There are womens museums that focus on aspects of women First Ladies. of women artists. but not one in the United States or around the world. which I am aware of. that focuses on the sole accomplishments and contributions of half our populationwomen. I now yield to my colleague. MARSHA
Date: 2014-03-13
Speaker: CAROLYN B. MALONEY (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: New York

My colleague pointed out the historic importance of Tennessee in its giving women the right to vote. It is interesting that both of our States played such a crucial effort in the womens leadership in achieving this rightTennessee. the final vote. giving women the right to vote. and. New York. the birthplace of the womens movement and of the first resolutions and efforts to gain that right to votein Seneca Falls. New York. with Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Lucretia Mott. and Susan B. Anthony. Incidentally. they were all Republicans. and yet they gave their lives so that we could have the right to vote.