macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2005-07-14
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. First. let me thank the gentleman from Alaska and the gertleman from Minnesota . our chairman and ranking member. and the chair of the subcommittee for their leadership. I am delighted to acknowledge that this committee works bipartisanly. Today. we consider the Water Resources Development Act of 2005. And this bill addresses what the Congress failed to do for the past 5 years. to enact a Water Resources Development Act. I support biennial legislation for the Corps water resources program. It is critical to maintain a 2year cycle to provide continuity to the program and certainly to the nonfederal sponsors who support the Corps projects. A biennial cycle also affords Congress the opportunity to monitor and. if necessary. amend -the workings of the Corps program. often in response to changing circumstances. H.R. 2864 authorizes projects for the entirety of the Corps civil works program. It includes major flood control. navigation. environmental restoration. and other water resources projects. This legislation represents roughly 5V2 years of project requests and modifications. as well as oversight over how the Corps of Engineers carries out its business. As in the past. projects included in this bill were included not on the basis of whether they were Democratic projects or Republican projects but on their individual merit. And this is as it should be. Many of these projects provide vital public safety and economic benefits to our constituents. Their approval should not be withheld solely for partisan reasons. Again. I think the gentleman from Alaska and the gentleman from Tennessee . the chairman of the subcommittee. for working with me and with individual Members on both sides of the aisle to accommodate their requests for this important legislation. All of us know that the more we delay projects like this. the more costly they become and sometimes the conditions worsen. I also acknowledge our leadership of the gentleman from Minnesota . our ranking member. who cannot be here because he is attending the funeral of his motherinlaw. but he certainly has interest and a great deal of expertise in water resources issues. I strongly support this legislation and recommend that my colleagues vote in favor of final passage. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2005-07-14
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I will submit my statement for the RECORD in support of this legislation and in support of the Halls Bayou Federal Flood Control Project in Houston. Texas. Mr. Chairman. I want to congratulate the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the full Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for reporting out the Water Resources Development Act. WRDA. of 2005. I appreciate your inclusion of our language for the Halls Bayou Federal Flood Control Project in Houston. Texas. Historic flooding along Halls Bayou has been severe and frequent in some neighborhoods. During Tropical Storm Allison in June 2001. Halls Bayou was hit very hard. with more than 8.000 homes flooding within the watershed. No project can keep all homes from flooding. but a project can help reduce the risk of flooding for a significant number of families. reducing the need for Federal assistance. property damage. and loss of life. The purpose of section 5128 of this legislation which pertains to Halls Bayou is to allow the Harris County Flood Control District. HCFCD. to conduct the GRR and any subsequent Federal interest project on Halls Bayou. The Corps is limited in its staff. resources. and time with the many projects in the Galveston District and the Southwest Division. Local project sponsors with the necessary expertise. like Harris County. can provide efficiency by becoming more involved. Halls Bayou. a major tributary of Greens Bayou. was authorized in WRDA 1990 as part of the Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries Project. The original Halls Bayou authorization assumed the Greens Bayou project in place. which is now finishing a General Reevaluation Review. GRR. Results indicate that the work on Greens Bayou downstream of Halls Bayou will not have Federal work although it will have significant local projects. Therefore. a GRR is now needed for Halls Bayou as well. While conducting the GRR to find a possible Federal interest. Harris County can begin project implementation in order to reduce future flood damage as soon as possible. Adding Halls Bayou to section 211(f) allows Harris County to be reimbursed if the project is later approved by the Secretary. I thank the Subcommittee and full Committee for their work on this issue. I support the bill and the balance that it strikes between the need to improve water resources for human purposes and to preserve our water uses for the environment and future generations.
Date: 2005-07-14
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I want to say that I agree to work with this change in conference. Mr. Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado
Date: 2005-07-14
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition to this amendment. although I am not opposed to the aiendment.
Date: 2005-07-14
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. and I rise to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee . This amendment is a bipartisan amendment addressing technical changes and modifications that have come to the attention of the subcommittee since the bill was considered at markup time. The managers amendment also contains a few new items. including the contingent authorization of five additional largescale projects. provided that a favorable report of the chief of engineers is completed by the end of These five projects are a project for flood damage reduction along the Des Moines and Raccoon rivers in Iowa. a project of navigation for the Port Iberia. Louisiana. a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction. Union Beach. New Jersey. a project for environmental restoration along the Hocking River. Ohio. and a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction in Pawleys Island. South Carolina. Among the additional new items in the managers amendment are authorizations for small flood damage reduction and emergency streambank protection projects in New York State. the authorization of a transfer of properties in the State of Louisiana. three additional Corps of Engineers studies. and the authorization for the corps to participate in the restoration of the San Pablo Bay watershed in California. Mr. Chairman. I.reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2005-07-14
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment is virtually the same as the amendment offered by the gentleman to the Water Resources Development Act of 2003. and which was defeated by a vote of 65 to The arguments against this amendment are the same. and unfortunately the gentleman from California has not addressed the concerns raised by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure the last time this amendment was offered. I can understand the gentlemans interest in supporting additional investment in our Nations ports and harbor infrastructure. but I do not believe that this amendment is the best way to achieve that goal. Port authorities currently have the authority to collect fees for the services they provide. as provided by section 208 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. and decisions of the Supreme Court. These fees can be used for services provided. and the construction. and operation and maintenance of. or emergency response services for navigation projects for a harbor. The fees contemplated by the Rohrabacher amendment would be available for ports and States to use for any infrastructure project. including infrastructure outside the boundaries of the harbor. if the project is for transportation to. from. or through the harbor. This could be any road. rail. or even airport project associated with the harbor. It could also include the locks and dams on the inland waterway system. This amendment could encourage ports or States to view containerized cargo as a simple source of revenue. in effect. a hidden tax to finance any and all transportation modes. While I support the efforts of our Nations port facilities to provide intermodal connections between the ports and the highways and rail systems that move goods to their final destinations. I believe that it is inappropriate to establish a fee system where the containerized cargo -industry could be supporting other transportation modes. In addition. this amendment is described as a way to pay for muchneeded security enhancements at our Nations ports. However. in effect. the revenue raised by this amendment would be limited to only those in conjunction with the construction. operation. and maintenance of a navigation project or other infrastructure. and would cease to exist. once these projects were complete. It would not provide a longterm solution to reducing the vulnerability of our Nations ports. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Date: 2005-07-14
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from Oregon
Date: 2005-07-14
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the strong bipartisanship that is the hallmark of this bill. and I especially acknowledge the bipartisanship of the gentleman from Tennessee . subcommittee chairman. and the cooperation of the gentleman from Alaska . committee chairman. and the gentleman from Minnesota . ranking member. This bill demonstrates the kind of cooperation that too often is lacking in this House. We on the Democratic side do not agree with everything that is in this bill. We might have written it differently had we written it alone. I am sure that any colleagues on the Republican side feel the same way. But working together. listening to each other. we developed a bill that I am sure will have broad bipartisan support in this - House when the vote is taken in just a few minutes. I also take this time to acknowledge the highly professional and skilled work of Susan Bodine. the Republican staff director and counsel for the subcommittee. This will be her last water resources bill. She has been nominated to become the assistant administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response at the Environmental Protection Agency. and I am sure that she will soon be confirmed and will do a wonderful job. She has served the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in this House - with the knowledge. professionalism. advocacy and pragmatism that exemplifies the best of the legislative process. On behalf of the Democrats on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. we congratulate Ms. Bodine and wish her every success in her new position.
Date: 2005-07-14
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. reserving the right to object. I would first like to thank my friend from Virginia for bringing up this legislation today as well as the distinguished Republican leader for allowing it to be considered under unanimous consent. I would also like to extend my thanks to the ranking member of the Government Reform Committee and my fellow Californian for his support. and. of course. our leader. the gentlewoman from California. Mr. Speaker. Disneyland is the treasure of the 47th Congressional District of California. and it is also a national treasure. Its doors first opened 50 years ago. on July 17. 1955. This bill commemorates the anniversary. which will be celebrated this weekend in my hometown of Anaheim. California. The bill also celebrates the extraordinary life of its creator and visionary. Mr. Walt Disney. Since Disney introduced his lovable Mickey Mouse to the world in 1928. his creations and his legacy have been a joy and an inspiration to this country and to every corner of the globe. Disneyland and the world of Disney. of course. have gone far beyond its humble beginnings. Disneyland. itself. has grown from a single theme park with one hotel into a fullscale resort with two worldclass theme parks. 2.200 hotel rooms. and 40 restaurant and retail locations. And it is Orange Countys leading employer. directly employing 2.000 individuals and supporting an additional 45.700 jobs. It is. therefore. my pleasure and honor to recognize the 50th anniversary of Disneyland. for as we say in Anaheim. it is the happiest place on Earth. I thank. again. my colleagues for allowing me to offer this legislation today.
Date: 2005-07-18
Speaker: GREGORY MEEKS (democrat)
Chamber: H

Their counsel. advocacy. and commitment to these issues have been instrumental in raising the importance and awareness of this cause to me and this Congress. I appreciate their support. As a freedomloving people. we in the United States have a role to play in the fulfillment of Colombias democratic experiment to include aid for AfroColombians. while future disbursements of U.S. aid should factor in the needs of AfroColombian populations. Increased foreign assistance of Colombia must also be devoted to the development of marginalized peoples. Historically. AfroColombians have looked to the United States as a progressive society. Americas struggle to end racism at home and to dismantle Apartheid in Africa gives Afrodescendants in Latin America hope that they will one day see that the mission towards a humanitarian freedom and democracy is not yet finished. Americas voice in Latin America cannot be ignored.
Date: 2005-07-20
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I rise today because I just cannot help feeling remorse for what has happened to the truth in America. For more than a week. the American people have known that Karl Rove was involved in the lgaking of a covert CIA agents name to the press. He damaged our national security and put an agent at risk. This is not the work of a patriot. Of course. Rove did notadmit to his treachery. Instead. the story has come out through reporters who are getting their information from Karl Roves attorney. Republicans. from the President on down. continue to say that they will not comment until they know all the facts. Here is an idea: President Bush should demand that Karl Rove come clean and tell the American people everything. While Rove continues to hide behind his attorney. a grand jury is investigating the matter. For some strange reason. Republicans claim that Rove has been vindicated. Something tells me that if Rove really believed he was innocent of wrongdoing. we would have already heard from him by now. l 1015 The silence from both Rove and the White House is deafening. while the truth continues to be obscured for political gain.
Date: 2005-07-20
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak about Social Security and the millions of American women who rely on it every day. Women are among one of the largest groups of Social Security beneficiaries who stand to lose a great deal should Social Security be privatized. On average. women live 3 years longer than men. Any contributions to a private account would have to stretch out over more years. Additionally. the private accounts do not have the guaranteed annual costofliving increase in Social Security which would jeopardize the retirement and economic security of older women through the gamble of the stock market. Social Security is a good deal for women because it gives people with lower earnings a greater return on what they paid in. and women on average have lower incomes and less time in the workforce. Mr. Speaker. it is high time we quit talking about privatizing Social Security and instead come up with ways to strengthen it.
Date: 2005-07-21
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise to explain my decision to vote against this version of the PATRIOT Act. This has not been an easy decision. Some of the provisions that are being reauthorized in this bill provide law enforcement officials with important tools that may be helpful in detecting and disrupting terrorist activities. I support those provisions. Other provisions. however. fail to provide adequate safeguards to ensure that the privacy rights of innocent citizens are protected. It is very important that. in our effort to defend the liberties that Americans cherish. we not enact measures that erode the very freedoms we seek to protect. We can ensure that the government has the necessary surveillance powers without sacrificing the privacy rights of Americans. Indeed. many amendments to the PATRIOT Act were proposed in both the Judiciary Committee and the Rules Committee to address legitimate concerns. Unfortunately. many of these amendments were either rejected or blocked from coming up for a vote. In the aftermath of September 11. 2001. it is essential that we strengthen our ability to detect. deter. and disrupt terrorist activities. Many provisions in the PATRIOT Act accomplish this objective in a balanced way. Other provisions. however. leave citizens vulnerable to unchecked. unwarranted. and potentially abusive invasions of privacy. I am hopeful that the Senate will address these shortcomings in the House bill so that. at the end of the day. we can enact a balanced bill that protects both our security and the rights and liberties we seek to secure. We can do better. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleaguesboth Democrats and Republicansto develop a bill of which we can all be proud and which can be a true testament to American patriots and to the Constitution we all seek to uphold and defend.
Date: 2005-07-21
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I will certainly vote far this amendment. but I fear that it does not fully solve the problem that has been identified by many. Before the PATRIOT Act. the government could obtain only limited records from hotels. storage facilities and car rental companies. and only if those documents pertained to an agent of a foreign power. Li 1500Now. the government can seek any records from anyone as long as it is relevant to an investigation. The FISA court does not really have any discretion to deny these requests and. once they are granted. they are subject to a gag order. Now. the Justice Department has told us that they have never once used section 215 relative to libraries. and I have no reason to disbelieve them. but the American Library Association reports that they have received 200 formal or informal requests for materials. presumably under some other section of the law. perhaps grand jury subpoenas. I do not know. The fact is that Americans are aware of this issue. and I believe this is having a chilling effect on first amendment rights in terms of reading and speaking. I believe it is important that government have the opportunity to obtain records when it is necessary to fight terrorism. I do believe. however. that the relevance standard is too low. I also believe that when the House that previously approved a carveout for identifiable information from libraries it spoke about the chilling impact. I believe we have a better way to get these records and also to untrouble readers. So while I will support the amendment. it falls short of what is necessary.
Date: 2005-07-21
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I support this amendment although it does not make some of the changes recommended by Mr. SCOTT in committee about ascertainment and minimization that we believe are important. It would allow for the requirement of oversight. which I think is important. The chairman has said many times that hearings have been held. They were. but they were basically held since April. We do have a tendency to postpone our work until it must be done. One of the things that I hope we will take a look at that has not been discussed is section 209 relative to obtaining electronic information with a subpoena. Thatis a routine matter that caused no concern because it stored electronic data and that is not new law. The reason why we need to look at it before 10 years from now is that as technology changes and all telephone communication becomes Voice Over Internet Protocol. theoretically every phone call would be subject to seizure by subpoena. which is not something I think any of us would agree we intend to do. That should be a wiretap standard and it may drift down to a subpoena standard. That is why we need oversight. not because there is a bad guy out there necessarily. but because the technology is going to change and change swiftly and potentially very much alter what we think we are doing here today.
Date: 2005-07-21
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I would just note that we have spent since 9/11 only a couple hundred million dollars in homeland security to secure our rail systems. That is the real problem here. We spent nearly $25 billion on air security and a couple of hundred million on rail. I would also not that although I do not oppose the death penalty. I doubt very much the death penalty is going to deter the suicide bombers. I think we need to look at not deterrents but at actually preventing the terrorists from harming Americans by protecting the systems and putting our money where our mouth is and in securing these rail systems which we have failed to do. As my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary knows. I also serve on the Committee on Homeland Security. We are well aware of how deficient our efforts have been in this regard. That is the crux of this problem. not threatening suicide bombers with the death penalty.
Date: 2005-07-21
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. many of us. when we think about terrorism. feel exactly the way the proponent of the amendment does. that we want to exert maximum force against the offender. Those. who would kill deserve to pay the ultimate price. On the other hand. I am aware that there are people in our country and in our Congress who for religious reasons do not believe in the death penalty. The Pope did not believe in the death penalty and. obviously. he was not for terrorism any more than our religious colleagues who have that objection are for terrorism. So I think it is important to state that. I also want to say I am a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. I have been for 10 years. If there was a hearing in the subcommittee that I am not a member of all well and good. but I think this amendment poses some new things that the full committee would benefit from going through. The reduced number of jurors that is being proposed. the procedural changes that are quite new. I think. deserve the attention of the full committees. It is possible that this measure could run into constitutional problems. And I think we would be better sqrved to sort through that in a thorough way than to expose these elements of the PATRIOT Act to court challenge. Finally. I would just say as I said before. even though we seek. understandably. retribution against those who would do these horrible crimes. I am just skeptical that imposing the death penalty is going to deter the suicide bombers. Really. what weneed to do is to spend the time and the money to take steps to protect ourselves in a more thorough way than we have done since 9/11. As a member of the Committee on Homeland Security. I am acutely aware. and we are on both sides of the aisle. I can tell you of the shortfallings that we have in our protection against terrorism.