macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2006-06-07
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise today because I feel a great injustice is being done to our Nation. It seems that our Republican colleagues decided to place the concerns of the American people aside so they can continue to divide us. Mr. Speaker. our country needs solutions to problems. Unfortunately. the majority is so out of touch with the average citizens of this Nation. they refuse to see the true important issues. Americans are worried about how they are going to pay for their childrens college tuition. That is why we have a plan on helping parents better afford college by doubling the amount they can write off for their childrens tuition. America is worried about how they are going to pay for their high energy bills. That is why we need an energy package that ends our dependence on foreign oil. These are issues that are important to all our citizens. We need a change from the "no solution" rhetoric of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The American citizens are tired of the division of our Nation. We need to unite our Nation and begin to govern not just for the few but for all. That is what we have been electe do and that is what we should dern of ourselves. It is time for a new a da here in Washington. one that cuses on the issues of all Americ not just the few. II
Date: 2006-06-07
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I have no further requests for time on this legislation. Again. I want to thank Mr. PRICE and Mr. MCKEON for bringing this bill to the floor. and I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2006-06-08
Speaker: AL GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman. I thank God that Members OBEY. HYDE and LANTOS have had the courage to bring this amendment. And I say so because. Mr. Chairman. a human crisis of the highest magnitude exists in Darfur. As we speak. we have had 2.5 million people displaced. Something has got to be done about that. We have had 3 million people put in a position such that they have to exist on emergency assistance. 400.000 people are dead. These are real people. these are real numbers. There is real suffering going on in Darfur. I do not know what the headlines will read tomorrow in Egypt. I do not know what they are going to read here in my hometown of Houston or here in Washington. D.C.. but I know this: at some point on the infinite continuum that we call time. the omniscient. the omnipresent. and the omnipotent will come together and every one of us will have to answer the question: Where were you when there was murder and rape and hunger in Darfur? Where were you when your brothers and your sisters were suffering? I want to let you know that this is the least we can do for the people of Darfur. Mr. Chairman. $50 million will go to the World Food Program that needs help. It only has 32 percent of what it needs to meet the demands of this crisis. Mr. Chairman. we have to ask ourselves the question: If not now. when? When will we give help and aid to those in need? If not here. where? Where will the help come from? If not us. who? Who will the help come from?
Date: 2006-06-08
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. until August of last year. broadband Internet providers were considered common carriers under the law. with a legal requirement to carry all traffic equally. A series of FCC decisions and the Supreme Courts decision to them changed all that. turning broadband services into unregulated "information services." Why is this important? In my district in Silicon Valley. everybody uses the Internet and knows that you have to have net neutrality. They cannot believe tfiat we would even consider changing that rule. So what does "common carrier mean? For those of you who dont use the Internet a lot. common carrier is a concept that is quite old. What it really means in exchange for rights to use public ways: you agree to carry all passengers on the same terms. If you get on the bus. a common carrier. you are charged a fee. but the bus company cannot charge more to women than it can to men. and that is really the equivalent of what we are talking about here. The phone company consolidations have meant that most Americans have one or at most two choices for their broadband service provider. What that means is that we are going to have a duopoly or a monopoly unless we have net neutrality rules that will stifle the Internet. It will turn the Internet into the equivalent of cable TV. That is not going to be good for innovation. Google is a multibillion dollar corporation that was founded in a dorm room by two Stanford students. They had an opportunity to be successful because they were not screened out at the very beginning by incumbents who paid for access. That is about to change unless this House adopts net neutrality rules. Some of the phone companies have suggested that there is a free ride. What they have failed to point out is that the phone companies are paid an enormous amount of money. just like the bus company is. for use of their .services. What the net neutrality rules say is you cannot differentiate. I would just like to say we want to go on seeing the girl in the funny hat making lemonade. Dont make us watch Robin Williamss cousin making bacon juice instead.
Date: 2006-06-08
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me thank the chairman of the committee. also a Texan. I have an amendment before us today that is really unambiguous and straightforward in its intent.
Date: 2006-06-08
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Isnt it necessary to claim the time in opposition to actually be opposed. and the chairman of the committee is not opposed to the amendment.
Date: 2006-06-08
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I would just like to point out that the Smith- amendment does absolutely nothing. The amendment is to the Communications Act. not to the Clayton or Sherman antitrust acts. and whether or not we past this amendment. the current antitrust laws will continue to operate as before. The savings clause neither creates new net neutrality protections nor takes them away: It is superfluous. it is nothing. and it is meant to encourage Members who actually are for net neutrality into thinking they can somehow get away with being for net neutrality but doing nothing. The Trinko case contained a similar antitrust savings clause. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Trinko case basically held there were no antitrust remedies for anticompetitive conduct in areas regulated by the Telecommunications Act. The whole issue is how the antitrust laws apply. I would point out that our committee. the Committee on the Judiciary. reported out by a vote of 2013 a bill introduced by Chairman SENSENBRENNER and the ranking member. Mr. CONYERS.. that actually did provide antitrust remedies for these Internet provisions. Inexplicably. the real bill. the real amendment that the chairman of the committee and the ranking. member crafted and that won a majority of support. bipartisan I Would add. on the committee to be reported out. was not made in order for us to discuss today. Instead. this phony amendment .was made in order. I would like to say something else about this rhetoric about regulation. Antitrust law is not regulation. It sets the standard for what monopolies cannot do. It is not a regulatory approach. It is a set of laws that keep monopolies from squeezing the little guys. which is what is going to happen if we do not get real net neutrality in this bill. The Markey amendment was put in order. We can vote for that. and I hope it passes. If it does not. we will end up with the dualopolies or the monopolies turning the Internet into a kind of cable television outfit. When the public finds out what we are doing to their Internet. the dome is going to collapse with the uproar they create. For Members who have been here a long time and remember the vote that they took that allowed cable TV rates to go through the roof. that uproar is going to be nothing compared to what you hear if this measure goes forward.
Date: 2006-06-09
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. not only as the cochair of the Refugee Caucus. but as a member of the Immigration Border Security and Claims Subcommittee. which has oversight over U.S. refugee programs. I am a strong supporter and. indeed. cosponsor of this amendmbnt. Members have said they would like to give a mes.age to Colombia. Well. I would like to send a message to the refugees who are sitting in camps in Darfur who have been notified that their pathetic rations have been cut in half to the point where they do not. have enough food to actually survive. I would like to focus in on where the funds are going.
Date: 2006-06-09
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend from Massachusetts. I understand the concerns that prompted this amendment. Nevertheless. I believe that prohibiting funds to WHINSEC would be wrongheaded and shortsighted. As a member of the WHINSEC Board of Visitors. Ive had the opportunity to see firsthand the training that takes place there. Respect for human rights is a fundamental component of the curriculum. and it is a top priority for the Commandant and the faculty. WHINSEC has made significant and sustained efforts over the last several years to reach out to human rights groupsto show them the human rights training that is taking place. and to have them take an active role in that training through lectures. discussions. and other interactions with the students. Some groups choose to participate. others do not. But WHINSEC is making a serious effort to include them. Ive heard critics of WHINSEC say that "Latin America is walking away" from the Institute. but from what Ive seen. nothing could be further from the truth. Enrollment is down only because many countries lack the funding to send their students. Why is that? Because we prohibit .IMET funding for countries who havent signed Article 98 agreements. Thats an important issuesomething weve been working on in the House Armed Services Committeebut it has nothing to do with other countries interest or willingness to send students to WHINSEC. On the Armed Services Committee. weve worked very hard over the years to promote regional security cooperation anq militarytomilitary relationships with our allies around the world. Nowhere is this effort more important than in Latin America. We" must maintain strong ties with our partners in the region. or else we will wake up to find that our competitors--or even our enemieshave taken our place. We cannot afford to let those relationships falter. And WHINSEC is a vital tool for strengthening security cooperation in the region. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Date: 2006-06-09
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of this amendment by my friend from California. Human trafficking is slavery. plain and simple. and we are morally bound to do everything we can to put an end to it. The sad truth is that human trafficking is one of the fastest growing types of transnational criminal activity. And yet. resources to combat it remain scarce. My -district. Orange County. is home to many victims of human trafficking. and Ive had the opportunity to meet with some of them and also with some of the community groups who are providing these survivors with the support services they desperately need. Orange County is also home to a CounterTrafficking Task Force working to develop strong partnerships between local. state and federal law enforcement agencies. The Task Force trains first responders to identify and rescue trafficking victims. disript and apprehend traffickers and make subsequent referral of victims to needed support services. Were very fortunate to have programs like these in the United States. but many other countries lack the resources or the expertise to combat human trafficking on their own. Without coordinated international efforts. we have little hope of defeating the traffickers. Thats why we need to dedicate many more of our foreign assistance dollars to helping our friends around the World in their antitrafficking efforts. This amendment is a good first step. and I am pleased that the Chairman- has agreed to accept it.
Date: 2006-06-09
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia and Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island changed their vote from "no" to "aye." So the amendment was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Date: 2006-06-09
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to express my support for a safe and secure homeland. and for providing local governments and our first responders with the tools and resources they need. Mr. Speaker. I support H.R. 5441. the Homeland Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2007. which passed the House on Tuesday. June 6. Had I been present. I would have voted in favor of this legislation.
Date: 2006-06-13
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I would like to thank my Houston neighbor for yielding me the balance of her time. Racial intolerance has divided this country since the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. The history of immigrants coming to this country teaches us that when one particular ethnic group comes to this country in large numbers. that group becomes the target of false suspicions and contempt. This has been true in our Nations history. whether it be the Irish. the Germans. the Italians. or Chinese immigrants. In 1921. Congress passed the first immigration restrictions because we were worried immigrants were coming in and taking our jobs. Now today we face a similar climate. We navigate through our latest effort to address immigration in this country with Hispanics. mostly from Mexico. Just last month. in my home county. we had a young Mexican American teenager who was nearly beaten to death and sexually assaulted by two white teenagers who were known to be racist. Unfortunately. our country has seen a rise in crimes targeting particular races. ethnicities. and genders over the past few years. To combat this growing trend. many States and the Federal Government have considered and passed legislation designated as hate crimes legislation. If someone attacks me or my property because I am an Anglo. that is a crime and they should be punished. But if they attack me because I am an Anglo and they destroy my property or attack me. that should have a higher punishment level.. And that is true in this country and it should be true in many of our States. and we need to make sure that happens. It is bad enough to have your property or you hurt. but somebody just doing wrong against you but doing it because they dont like your race. your ethnicity. the color of your skin. your religion or your gender is just wrong. Everyone should be protected from hate crimes regardless of where they occur. Our Federal law only covers hate crimes if it is a federally protected activity. This young man was actually at a private residence. so the U.S. Attorney says they cant file a hate crime in Texas. We are still working on the state law. Hopefully. the district attorney will do it. All Americans should be outraged by these video games that the Internet depicts shooting caricatures of Mexicans crossing our border. This only incites needless hatred and creates more confusion on an issue that is already complicated. I hope my colleagues in the House will join me in denouncing and stopping any racial overtones surrounding the immigration issue. Our country is made up of immigrants. we all came from somewhere. Some of us were lucky enough. our parents got here sooner than others. but we are representative of every nationality and every ethnicity in the world. I thank Congressman BACA for putting this together and my colleague from Texas for yielding.
Date: 2006-06-13
Speaker: CORRINE BROWN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. attention students: since the Bush administration took office in "2001. tuition and fees at 4year public colleges have increased by 40 percent. forcing more and more students and their families to take out Federal loans. The typical student borrower now graduates from college with a record of $7.500 debt. which they must start paying months after they graduate. But thanks to the Bush administration. come July 1. interest rates will be raised by 7 percent. ard for the parents 7.8 percent. To avoid adding potential thousands of dollars to the life of their loans. students and parents with Federal student loans should consolidate now before the July 1 rates take effect and lock in interest rates as low as 4.75 percent. To circumvent increases caused by the Republican raid on student loans. a tax on student loans. borrowers should call the Department of Education at 18005577392. I repeat. to avoid this. call 18005577392.
Date: 2006-06-13
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. the American people want Congress to focus on their priorities. and that is exactly what the House Democrats are doing. We are fighting to expand opportunity to all Americans. not just a privileged few. At a time when the average college studelit graduates with more than $17.000 in debt. Democrats want to expand the opportunities available to them by cutting the interest rates on their college loans. not increasing them. like the Republicans are doing. At a time when wages remain stagnant for most Americans. Democrats continue to fight to raise the minimum wage because we want a fair and working wage. By increasing the minimum wage. we would not only expand opportunity for 7 million workers. but we would also increase wages for middleclass workers who have not seen a substantial pay raise in over 5 years. At a time when highpaying jobs are going overseas. Democrats have an innovation agenda for science. engineering. information technology. Mr. Speaker. it is time that this House really got to work. 0l 1215
Date: 2006-06-13
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. with tuition costs rising and the availability of financial aid declining. many parents in our country are finding it harder and harder to afford the cost of college education for their sons and daughters. However. these families know the importance of having a college degree in todays economy. We really cannot underestimate the importance. Therefore. large numbers are relying on student loans to help meet tuition costs. While these loans can be a great resource to make college accessible to more students. they can also cause great financial hardships for the borrower when they graduate and the payments are due. The administration has supported making paying for these loans even more difficult by enacting their raid on student aid and cutting $12 billion from the higher education budget. Because of these drastic and devastating cuts. interest rates on student and parent loans for college will increase significantly July 1. To avoid this dramatic increase in interest rates. I encourage all Federal student loan borrowers to visit www.loanconsolidation.ed.gov to consolidate their loans before July 1.
Date: 2006-06-13
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of H.R. 5576. the appropriations act for thp Departments of Transportation. Treasury. and Housing and Urban Development. I want to note two important Houstonarea projects that received funding in this legislation: METRO Solutions and the Harrisburg grade separation. � The $2.5 million for METRO is a very small amount compared to our need for transit investment in Houston. particularly for light rail. However. we are very grateful for this amount. because in previous years members of our Houston delegation blocked any funding in this bill for Houston light rail. We will never know how many millions went to other projects around the country because our delegation was not united behind a plan. Thankfully. this situation has now changed. and we have a commitment from our delegation to pursue $1 billion over 10 years for Houston light rail. Unfortunately. it does not look like we will be able to meet that commitment. As a result. the process at the FTA is taking on much greater importance. METRO must cut through the redtape at FTA and get approval for. their projectand a full funding grant agreement if the Northside Line and East End Line are going to be a reality. We are going to need all the funding we can get if we want to upgrade the BRT to light rail as quickly as possible to meet the expectations of the voters in the referendum. The other important project for Houston is the Harrisburg Grade Separation. The bill contains $300.000 to get this project started in the design phase. East End Houston has entirely too many inconvenient and unsafe grade crossings. and a grade separation at Harrisburg will provide easy access and prevent rail/auto/truck accidents for area residents. We have just started construction on our Manchester grade separation. so it is fitting that we are starting at the beginning of the process for another very important intersection. This project will fit in well with the effort to reorganize the freight rail system for Harris County and surrounding counties. because the most relief from freight rail traffic needs to be in the areas with the most impact. Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee and the full committee for their work on this bill and also thank our Houston area appropriator. JOHN CULBERSON for his help. particularly with the METRO funding.
Date: 2006-06-13
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by commending the gentleman from Michigan. Chairman KNOLLENBERG. and the ranking member. the gentleman from Massachusetts . for their good work on this bill in the midst of an extremely tight budget environment. Both gentlemen have had to make some very unpopular decisions. However. as I stated last year. eliminating the funding for brownfield redevelopment programs should be reconsidered. As a result. I rise today in strong support of the MillerJohnson amendment to H.R. 5576. Similar to last year. the gentleman from California and I offered this amendment today because we both feel that it is time for this body to get really serious about eliminating the Nations estimated 500.000 brownfields. The amendment increases the Department of Housing and Urban Development Brownfields Redevelopment Program account by $15 million. In its present form. H.R. 5576 provides no funding for a program that has helped to transform communities. large and small. throughout the Country. The amendment calls for a corresponding offset through a reduction of $15 million within the Business Systems Modernization Account in the Treasury title. Currently. the Business Systems Modernization Account is $45 million above the administrations request. and $15.3 million above last years request. While I respect the committees view that HUD funding is no longer essential or appropriate due to the EPAs expanded authority and iftcreased appropriations. this is certainly a view that I do not share. First of all. I believe it is important to note that there are clear distinctions between EPAs Brownfields Program relative to HUDs. Although both are equally important. EPAs program.focuses primarily on cleanup. whereas the focus of HUDs program is on redevelopment .of brownfield sites once cleanup is complete. It is true that the authority of the EPA has been expanded. However. the consistent and chronic underfunding of the Brownfields Program by the President and the Congress leave much to be desired in terms of corresponding appropriations. * In fact. appropriations for brownfields assessment and cleanup peaked.