macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2011-06-15
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

The opportunities for Members to have amendments is a privilege that should not be denied. And I respect my colleague from Iowa for his right to offer an amendment. But it is tragic and disappointing that my friend from Iowa. who served with me on the Judiciary Committee. would take this time to demean the tragic lives that black farmers. Native Americans farmers. and others impacted have experienced over several decades. to raise the name of Shirley Sherrod. whose eloquent story and painful story of the loss of her father in the segregated South. who was murdered. and the family had to survive after his tragic murder because of his colorto my knowledge. a farmer. man of the Earth. I sat on the Judiciary Committee for a number of years. and this legislation proceeded through the Judiciary Committee. I join the gentleman in wanting to ensure the adequacy of the implementation of this settlement. I want to stand alongside a transparent system. But this was a lawsuit that many of the litigants died before they even got to the settlement. This is the American waya battle in the courts. a settlementhad it not been for the good will of Members of this body on both sides of the aisle. members of the Congressional Black Caucus who joined with members of the Democratic Caucus. Republicans. past Presidents. who were concerned and interested in the devastation tragedy of the segregated South and a segregated Department who treated black farmers in a disparate way from others. Individuals who went bankrupt. who lost farms because they could not get the same access to agricultural loans that others could. And in the wisdom of the court system and the wisdom of this body and the wisdom of a settlement. relief was brought not before many had died and their heirs. trembling. limited. scattered. few. were able to come together and receive the funding. Im sorry Mr. KING was not at the signing of that final settlement and to see those historic families. patriots. who expressed nothing but love for this country. What a tragedy to come and interfere with an existing settlement. I dont even know how he can put this amendment up on the floor. Its late. Were losing our voices here. But I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize that theres nothing wrong with ensuring that the Agriculture Department and the surrounding entities that are dealing with the distribution of these funds be transparent and without fraud. But it would be absurd for any Member to join and to vote to interfere with the legitimate settlement of legitimate claims that have evidenced the pain and devastation and disregard and disparate treatment and discrimination and unconstitutional treatment of farmers who we claim on this floor today to love. Farming is part of the American fabric. And if theres any body of people who understands farms. it is the exslaves who worked for 400 years without payment in the cotton fields of the South. I ask my colleagues to consider opposing this amendment. and I rise respectfully to oppose it.
Date: 2011-06-15
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa .
Date: 2011-06-15
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Page 80. after line 2. insert the following (and make such technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate): SEC. 747. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used in contravention of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.). The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Date: 2011-06-15
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

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: Page 80. after line 2. insert the following: SEC. . None of the funds made available by this Act may be used in contravention of section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(e)). The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Date: 2011-06-16
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chair. on rollcall No. 437. I missed the vote due to a hearing on Pipeline Safety in Energy & Commerce Subcommittee. Had I been present. I would have voted "aye." Stated against:
Date: 2011-06-16
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Messrs. COFFMAN of Colorado and CLARKE of Michigan. Ms. SPEIER. and Mr. BERMAN changed their vote from "no" to "aye." Messrs. FRANK of Massachusetts. FLAKE. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. ROTHMAN of New Jersey. and AMASH changed their vote from "aye" to "no." So the amendment was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Date: 2011-06-16
Speaker: AL GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Madam Chair. today I was unavoidably detained and missed the vote on: Flake Amendment No. 2 to H.R. 2112. Prohibits the use of funds to be used for the construction of any ethanol blender pump or any ethanol storage facility. Had I been present. I would have voted "no" on this bill.
Date: 2011-06-21
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. it is disappointing that we are here in the dark of night discussing the issues of election fairness. I would almost imagine it would be somewhat similar to taking up the Voting Rights Act. the one of 1965. in the dark of night. We can speak lightly about this. but I will tell you that every election time someone is denied the right to vote in the United States. I hope Americans are paying attention tonight to realize that even though it is represented that the change and eliminating the particular agency that deals with the questions of fairness. the Election Assistance Commission. were actually not saving money. and passing the responsibilities off to the Federal Elections Commission. Why could we not have accepted the amendment of the distinguished gentleman from Texas . who said lets do it right. Lets have a general accountable study and know what were doing and if were taking away the rights of those who are desiring to vote. I will tell you that the purging of voters that occurs in Texas and other places around the Nation. and in particular in Harris County. is not a minor issue. The distraction of African American male voters in Florida during the 2000 election is not simply a distraction. And so the question is. even if this deals with interactive data. let me suggest to you that it is an important tool for local government because without this particular commission. those resources or those responsibilities and the finding of the money will be on local governments. So now were doing unfunded mandates. I would simply say that it was painful to pass the health bill.
Date: 2011-06-21
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

This legislation. Mr. Speaker. was passed in the backdrop of a great deal of emotionalism. I am not here to point fingers. but I lived through that emotional time. It is history. my colleagues know that it is. but they know how painful it was to be engaged in hanging chads and discussions about who was turned away from the voting boothand also the discrepancies on how we count our votes in America. the most sophisticated Nation in the world. the Nation that others look to and say. how do we promote democracy? Why would we stand on the floor of the House at 8 oclock tonight and deny democracy? I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation and to stand for democracy and fairness.
Date: 2011-06-22
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. the base bill is estimated to have a discretionary cost of $446 million over the next 5 years. $1.1 billion over the next 10 years. The managers amendment violates the new CutGo rules by undoing the antifee diversion language. which eliminates a procedure that would have decreased the budget deficit by $717 million over 5 years. This violates the CutGo rules that the majority put in place. I would note also that the rule and the managers amendment have many other problems. I am very disappointed that having worked on the patent reform measure since 1997 that we are yanking defeat from the jaws of victory here today. The rule does not permit the consideration of Mr. CONYERS amendment. which was focused on this fee matter that corrects the violation of the rule. It also does not permit the consideration of the grace period preservation and prior art clarification that is essential to small inventors. If we are going to go to the firsttofile system. we need to make sure that we protect prior user rights and that we protect the grace period that has been with our system for so long or else we are going to disempower small innovators. That is simply wrong. This is a bill that had in the past gained nearly unanimous support when Mr. SENSENBRENNER was chair and when Mr. CONYERS was chair. I am distressed to report today that I cannot support this measure after working on it since 1997. Not only does it violate the rules. but it costs the Treasury. and it will disempower small innovative inventors. So this is wrong. and the amendments that could have been put in order to correct them were not permitted. I think this is really quite a shame. and I would urge that the measure not be brought up and. as Mr. SENSENBRENNER has suggested. that it be sent back to the Judiciary Committee for further work.
Date: 2011-06-22
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the Speaker and thank the gentleman. and I appreciate the generosity of the Rules chairman on the number of occasions that I have sought to both represent my constituents at the Rules Committee and to represent issues that are of concern to America. Let me just say that I believe in efficiency of time. but I am struck by a rule that has two major legislative initiatives that require the deliberation and the thoughtfulness of Members of Congress. I believe the rule is not necessarily a place to express ones opposition or support. but I do believe its important procedurally to discuss a number of issues. The legislation that deals with the EPA. H.R. 2021. in and of itself would warrant an opportunity for full discussion. and I offered a number of amendments that I thought were quite productive. and those amendments would have provided some reasonable thought about the EAB. It would have provided a review period. and one in particular that the gentleman mentioned was the opportunity to file your cases in local courts. Im glad that well have the general discussion on the floor. Far be it from me to suggest that is not a good thing. but I do want to say that I had a very strong amendment that was not included in the Rule. the Amendment was originally withdrawn but resubmitted so we did have an opportunity to correct a letter that we had sent. but Im glad for the debate in the form of another amendment just like mine regarding local federal courts being allowed to hear these matters.
Date: 2011-06-22
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Well. reclaiming my time. whatever the reason was. we both agree we needed to have more time for the rules debate. And I will now move to the patent bill. And as I said. I will not discuss the pros and cons of this legislation. but I will say to youand I see the gentleman rising over here maybe trying to correct something that was said. Theres no reason to correct anything other than the fact that we had a number of amendments that we offered and we would hope that we would have had an open rule.
Date: 2011-06-22
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Thank you very much. On the patent bill in particular. two amendments that would have been vital were to announce that this was not an undue taking of property. to indicate to those who are concerned about this issue. because I think the bill does have the ability to create jobs. and lastly is the point of being able to give small businesses an 18month period for disclosure when many small businesses have to secure funding from other places and the secret of their invention is exposed. This Amendment would have added protection to small businesses and improved the debate. nevertheless I look forward to the debate. but I hope we will not have this kind of rule in the future. Mr. Speaker. before I discuss Amendments I offered. I would like to note my support for the first to file system in H.R. 1249. I believe it to be a positive step toward improving the efficiency and effectiveness of our IP system. However. I am not deaf to some of the criticisms that it has received from various interests. and I believe it is imperative that this bill be a real jobs creator for small and large inventors and businesses. The amendments I am offering today are not controversial. They simply tighten up the language of the existing provisions of the bill. and add checks to ensure that the bill. if it becomes law. is fulfilling its intended purposes.
Date: 2011-06-22
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Thank you. Madam Chair. and I rise today to support H.R. 2021. the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act. and I want to thank our Energy and Commerce ranking member for providing time. Representing a heavily industrialized area thats naturally sensitive to air quality issues. I appreciate how the EPAs enactment of Clean Air Act provisions has positively attributed to our goal of cleaner air. For that reason. I have remained hopeful that EPAs administrative air permitting barriers to exploring Alaskas Outer Continental Shelf would be addressed. but they havent. As such. we continue to see air permits for offshore exploration wells perpetually go back and forth between the producer. the EPA. the Environmental Appeals Board. with no movement towards a final decision. Thats why I am an original cosponsor of the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act. which would rectify several of those process questions so that we can safely and responsibly produce our natural resources in the Arctic Ocean. The EPA needs to have a permit approval system in place that is predictable. workable. and understandable. When I hear that in the last 5 years Shell has drilled over 400 exploration wells worldwide while waiting for one single permit for Alaska. somethings definitely wrong with the process. While the opponents of this legislation are saying that this bill guts the Clean Air Act. thats just not true. because all this bill does is match EPAs Outer Continental Shelf permitting process with the air permitting process employed by the Department of the Interior in the Gulf of Mexico. a Clean Air Act air permitting process that has been successfully used for decades. By doing so. we can rest assured that we have a strong. offshore air permitting process. but that these projects are not left in limbo like we have seen with the Environmental Appeals Board in recent years. I also want to remind my colleagues that this bill just addresses permits for exploration wells where activity typically only lasts for a few days. not production wells where activities last for months. I have long been a supporter of safe and responsible drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf as these resources are a vital source of energy for the United States. With skyrocketing fuel costs. it is imperative for the U.S. to diversify our energy sources by exploring this area. and this bill is the first step in that process. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the bill.
Date: 2011-06-22
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

I yield myself such time as I may consume to oppose H.R. 1249. I have worked on the patent reform effort since 1997 and am disappointed that here today I am unable to support the bill as it exists. I did vote to report this bill out of our Judiciary Committee. but since that time we have seen two unfortunate things occur that have made this bill simply not viable. The first. and exceedingly important. is the protections for patent fees. so that all the fees would stay in the office. have been removed. The regular appropriations process will allow for fee diversions in the future. It has been the policy of the House. for example. not to divert fees from the Office. However. fees continue to be diverted. In fact. in the CR approved by the House this year. we diverted between $85 million and $100 million in fees from the Patent Office. and that is under the existing prohibition. So that is a major reason why the bill is defective. I would note also that if we are moving to a firsttofile system. there has to be robust protection for prior user rights. including prior user rights in the grace period that exists under current law. Sadly. those protections are missing in this bill. The managers amendment talks about disclosures only. It is a shame that other prior art. such as trade secrets and the like. would not receive the same protection. So I would urge that the bill. unfortunately. cannot be supported. I intend to oppose it. as well as the managers amendment. I yield such time as he may consume to the honorable gentleman from North Carolina . the distinguished ranking member of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee.
Date: 2011-06-22
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Chair. may I inquire as to how much time remains? The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 20 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from Texas has 1712 minutes remaining.
Date: 2011-06-22
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

At this point. I would be honored to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas. a member of the Judiciary Committee. Ms. SHEILA JACKSON LEE.
Date: 2011-06-22
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the distinguished Member from California. To my colleagues on the floor. this has to be. could have been or hopefully can be one of the greatest opportunities for bipartisanship that we have seen in any number of years. That was the process that was proceeded under on the Judiciary Committee. though obviously there are always disagreements. but the whole idea of our debate and the support of the present underlying legislation without the managers amendment was to. in fact. create jobs. In the committee. a number of my amendments were accepted. but in particular. the focus of converting from a firstinventorto -use system to a firstinventortofile was thought to promote the progress of science by securing for a limited time to inventors the exclusive right for their discoveries and to provide inventors with greater certainty regarding the scope of protections granted by these exclusive rights. Further. this new system was to be. or should be. able to harmonize the United States patent registration system with similar systems used by nearly all other countries with whom the United States conducts trade. This was to shine the light and open the door on American genius. In addition. so many of us have waited so long to be able to give the resources to the PTO in order for it to do its job. We were aghast in hearings to hear that there is a 7.000application backlog. so I rise as well to express enormous concern with the managers amendment. which. as the PTO director has indicated. Dave Kappos. every time we do not process a PTO. or a patent. for some genius here in the United States. for some hardworking inventor. every patent that sits on the shelf at the PTO office is taking away an American job. and that job is not being created. As well. it is denying a product from going to the market. and it is someones life that is not being saved. and our country ceases to grow. We need jobs in this country. We need a Patent Office that is going to expedite and move forward. We dont need discussions about lawyers fighting lawyers or trial lawyers. This is not a case of antilawyer legislation. We hope that some of the small businesses and large companies have their lawyers fighting to preserve and protect their patents. This bill will give them the opportunity to have that protection. but I am disappointed that all of a sudden the managers amendment changed around and took an enormous amount of those fees and invested them elsewhere instead of helping our small businesses. I am also disappointed that we dont recognize that a bill that helps big businesses can help small businesses as well. so I had offered an amendment that would extend the grace period while the small business is working to fund its patent. The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Date: 2011-06-22
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to talk a little bit about the managers amendment under this general debate time because there is a very constrained amount of time for that discussion. I want to touch on two things in particular. First is the fee issue. I know that theres been discussion that somehow the fees wont be diverted under the managers amendment. and I just think that is not a credible argument. I remember back in the year 2000 when we were promised that the fees would not be diverted by the appropriators. but then subsequent to that. there was diversion. And the truth is that so long as this is part of the appropriations process. the fees can. and I predict will be. diverted just as they were diverted during the adoption of the CR this year. The PTO estimates an $85 million to $100 million diversion of fees in the CR that was adopted earher this year. That conceptually is really just a special tax on innovators. If you raise the fees and you divert it for general purposes. thats just a special tax on inventors. and I just think its wrong and I cannot support it. I want to talk also. my colleague.
Date: 2011-06-22
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Well. I will use those 15 seconds. Madam Chair. by saying just a few things. First. the litigation reform mentioned is really to retroactively undo a case that was fairly and squarely won in the courts. Number two. that section 18 is basically just a giveaway to the banks. Theres some good things in this bill. The postgrant review. overall it does more harm than good. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2011-06-23
Speaker: AL GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. in these times of great difficulty and uncertainty. our senior citizens want to know where we stand. and I want the senior citizens to know that I stand with them. I will not vote to voucherize Medicare. and I will not vote to socialize to the extent that we privatize Social Security. Medicare has been there for millions of our senior citizens. It is a program on which they can depend. In their minds. Medicare is better care. We have 40 million seniors depending on Medicare. We cannot take that from them. Many of the seniors in my district depend on Social Security to the extent that. if they dont have Social Security. they do not "have." These two programs mean a lot to the people that I represent. No privatization of Social Security and no voucherizing of Medicare. I will vote to sustain them and protect them.
Date: 2011-06-23
Speaker: BARNEY FRANK (democrat)
Chamber: H

JARED POLlS and others to introduce a bill to get the Federal Government out of possession of marijuana and into interstate and international shipments of marijuana and allowing the States to decide. like they do with alcohol. how they should deal with marijuana. Better they should deal with it as a health policy and not a criminal policy and not stigmatize young people for life with marks on their record that might deny them employment and taking police officers work away from violent crimes. where they should be better be used.