macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2006-05-24
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

I am glad you touched on that theme. It is a pleasure to be here once again for our 30Something Working Group. where we try to talk about the issues from the perspective of our generation and also talk about the issues imp6rtant to our generation. And for people in our generation and the point that we are at in our lives. what blows my mind and continues to baffle me since I arrived in the Congress last year was the crushing debt that we are buried under right now. and that is not reversing itself. that there are no efforts on the part of the Republican leadership to reverse course. to turn around and go in the other direction and return to the days when President Clinton was in office. We had a surplus. a budget surplus. when we had no deficit. when we had a much smaller debt in terms of our debt to foreign countries. Of course. we had debt to foreign nations but not nearly what we have today. We have more debt combined under this President than the 42 other Presidents that we have had previously. And normally we have charts that we can highlight.
Date: 2006-05-24
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Absolutely. The three things I just want to hit on that are on all in that same theme: Last week. we passed a budget led by the Republican leadership here that just continues down that same path of irresponsible priorities. $6 billion cut to Homeland Security over 5 years. $488 million in 2007 alone. Cut the Army National Guard by 17.000 troops. The National Guard. which. if we all recall. the President just talked about deploying to the border. to our MexicanAmerican border to assist States in border security. On top of that. we are also deploying them to Iraq and Afghanistan. How thin can we spread them? And then on top of that. we are cutting the number of troops we give them. It cut funding for equipment for firefighters and police. $6 billion cut to veterans services over 5 years. It tripled health care fees for veterans for TRICARE. Lets fast forward to the tax reconciliation bill. which is the tax cuts that we made permanent under the Republican leaderships insistence. Lets talk about what that taxcut meant for real people. The tax bill that was signed this week by the President had Americans who made $20.000 a year. they get $2. $2 in their tax break. And when I stand at a town hall meeting and ask folks to raise their hands. Mr. MEEK. to let me know. who is it among you who have actually received money in your pocket from the tax breaks that President Bush and the Republican leadership have handed out over the last number of years. in a room full of several hundred people. maybe I get two or three hands. Maybe. Now. if these tax cuts are targeted like Democrats would design to working families and to people who really needed that money and would actually put. it back into the economy so that could revitalize the economy. like buying big ticket items like refrigerators and televisions and other things that would inject cash into the economy instead of investing it. which is what the wealthiest among us would do. then I could understand letting us make those tax cuts permanent all day long. but unfortunately. we do not have any of those tax cuts. We have tax cuts that puts $2 back in the pockets of people who make $20.000. and Americans who make $40.000. they get a whopping $16. but Americans who make more than $1 million get a thousand times that. They get $42.000. They get to go out and buy a Hummer. They can buy a Hummer. That is how much money someone who makes $1 million gets back. a Hummer. a Mercedes. a Suburban. a gas guzzler. and you cannot buy one of those with $2. Then let us add insultto injury. and last week there were comments made in this Chamber on this floor that people who make $40.000 a year do not pay taxes. I mean. come on. Do you know anyone that does not pay taxes that makes $40.000?
Date: 2006-05-24
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

We are acknowledging. we are calling on the carpet the Republican leadership for plunging us into the most debt we have ever been in and piling it up in record time to boot. We are borrowing and spiraling downward into tremendous debt to other nations. and then. on top of that. we are giving away our oil drilling rights that we are normally paid royalties for by the oil and gas industry. Last year. we passed two bills that basically give away those rights for free. We give them to the oil .industry. and subpequently. several months later. they make more profits than any corporation in American history. What would we do in the alternative? Finally. finally. there is leadership that is willing to step forward and adopt and propose an Innovation Agenda that would pledge to make us energy independent within 10 years. Our energizing American plan that was put together by the Democratic House working group that gets more specific than our Innovation Agenda. It talks about how we would increase production of Americanmade biofuels. using our cellulosic sources such as switch grass. producing ethanol through corn and possibly even through sugar cane. investing in research and development to improve the use of renewable energy. These are the commitments that Democrats would make. So. Mr. Speaker. when people on the other side of the aisle throw out that Democrats do not have an agenda. well. here is a piece of it. Mr. RYAN just had a piece of it. There are three stacks of notebook. none of which are full of empty paper. Mr. Speaker. that outline. our homeland security proposal. our domestic security proposals. our energy plan. These are the things that we would address from day one when we are in charge of this Chamber. We would eliminate the corruption. We would make sure that this Chamber is run in a bipartisan way. as Leader PELOSI indicated just last week. We would adopt democracy once again in the United States House of Representative which. quite honestly. is something I have not seen since the first day I got here. and it is really depressing.
Date: 2006-05-24
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

It is like I could just close my eyes. and listening to the Republicans. point fingers and call names at us. I could- just close my eyes and it is like I am listening to my twin 7yearolds fight with each other: Yes. they are. no. they dont. yes. they are. no. they dont. That is all they are-
Date: 2006-05-24
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

indicated there was a plan by Democrats regarding energy. ethanol. the use of farm products. biomass. I bet we could fund that program. I bet we could do more with that $25 billion rather than send it to the Chinese. not to reduce principal but simply to pay the interest.
Date: 2006-05-24
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

We could do something crazy like collect the royalties from the oil industry and invest it on alternative energy sources like those. We could fund this plan backwards and forwards with the money we did not make them pay us. That is what is so outrageous
Date: 2006-05-24
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

I want to close with an observation that what has been frustrating to me is that there is no outrage on that side. Everything we are laying out is factual. We are not making it up. So why does the Republican head only appear to go one way. up and down? Yes. sir. Mr. Speaker. I am happy to do whatever you say. Sure. Mr. President. No problem. It would be nice if they had some joints that made their heads go in this direction and their voices could be lifted up against what is going on here. But. sadly. that doesnt happen.
Date: 2006-05-25
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Speaker. today this House will consider the Homeland Security Appropriations bill. a bill I support for funding the safety of our communities and the security of our country. While I am proud this Congress is putting real dollars behind homeland security preparedness programs. it is not enough for us to simply write a check. We must play a more active role. We must engage. discuss. and oversee how that check is being spent. To that end I am working on legislation to authorize in law within the Department the programs most needed back home: the grants for allhazards emergency planning. supplies needed to carry out those plans. medical and search and rescue support. and antiterrorism and urban area security grants. These grant programs deserve our careful attention. not just simply a brief line in our budget. We all agree that we need to refocus on allhazards emergency preparedness. I look forward to working with my colleagues to authorize these programs so that our first responders can depend on us.
Date: 2006-05-25
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Madam Speaker. we have talked about the culture of corruption here. and it is very interesting that the way I see the culture of corruption is what we do right here on this floor. Todays seniors are paying the price for a prescription drug plan that does not have their best interests in mind. Rather. it is a plan that was created to actually help the special interests. Why couldnt we have a plan in Medicare? Why? Because that is not what the insurance companies want in the law. They helped to write the bill. and now the persons who worked with them are representing them. So since the time of the law passing. three of the main Republican negotiators are making very large sums of money. Madam Speaker. the American people dont like what they see here. They see a Republican majority that is too close to the special interests. and they want Washington to work for the people and work for you again.
Date: 2006-05-25
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Speaker. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. I am dismayed to see the issue of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge come to the floor again. especially under a rule that is narrowly limited. It limits our debate on what is such a volatile fssue. and it has the power to turn our Nation far off track in our road to increasing the use of alternative fuels. Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the easy way out. Heading off to one of our last bastions of wildlands to fuel what the President has called an "addiction to oil" is shameful. This Congress can do better. This Congress can be creative. As a Californian. I am proud of my State. When we have a problem. we think. we research it. we dedicate the resources. We create and we solve our problems. In a year. when the public is laughing at this Congress for the few days that we are working here. we have a chance to prove to America that we will take on the issue of energy dependence by investing in wind and solar. biomass. hydrogen. efficient energy programs that will create U.S. jobs. Instead of debating these real issues. we are wasting our time once again on this narrow focus of drilling in what is our one pristine national wildland that really deserves saving. not to scour it for oil that will do little to help Americas goal of energy independence. I hope that this Congress will vote against this rule and vote against drilling in ANWR.
Date: 2006-05-25
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in opposition to drilling in the Arctic Natipnal Wildlife Refuge. Americas natural resources are diminishing daily. Places like Fossil Rim Wildlife Center just outside of Dallas. with its 1800 acres of unspoiled natural beauty and endangered Texas Prairie Chickens. need the support and protection of Congress. Defending our natural resources is our responsitjlity as Federal representatives. All. Americans benefit from unspoiled lands. clear skies. and wild places to enjoy. Drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not the answer to our oil crisis. That strategy is not forwardthinking and wont sustain our energy needs for very long. What we need instead are greater investments in energy efficiency and alternative fuels. . Mr. Speaker. I have consistently opposed ANWR drilling and I will oppose ANWR drilling again this time around.
Date: 2006-05-25
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. this is an amendment to make sure that the taxpayers of this country and the owners of the Federal lands are not shortchanged if in fact ANWR will be opened in the future. Last week we discussed royalty relief. and we made the point that there are companies who have a royalty holiday. They do not pay royalties to the taxpayers of this country for the drilling on the lands that are owned by those taxpayers. In some cases. those companies may be able to escape almost all of the royalties on those lands. We are simply saying to the Secretary of the Interior. if ANWR is opened. whether you are for it or against it. if ANWR is opened. those companies that continue to exploit the royalty holiday will not be allowed to bid for a lease in the ANWR. should it be leased. This is only fair to the taxpayers. An overwhelming bipartisan coalition voted for this last week on legislation. We seek to have that vote again to make sure. We all know that oil is at $70 a barrel. We know oil company profits are at record alltime highs. Yet nobody can figure out how to give the taxpayer a break. The oil companies are not going to lower the price of gas or pay for the research in the bill yesterday. and now they are telling us they Wont give back the royalty holiday that they are not entitled to. They are going to continue to exploit this loophole in the law. and then they want to bid on new resources. We simply say. enough is enough. We want to protect the taxpayers. This is not about whether ANWR is open or whether ANWR remains closed. this is about the ethics and this is about the judgment of this Congress in. dealing with these oil companies that seek to not only have their cake and eat it too. but to move on and get new cake from the taxpayers of this country. Madam Speaker. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts .
Date: 2006-05-25
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Speaker. last week on the Hinchey amendment. where this issue was as straightforward as it is today. 67 Republicans joined 184 Democrats and overwhelmingly passed this amendment. This amendment is a matter of simple fairness and equity. and it is to make sure that those people at these times of record profits who seek to exploit the loopholes in the law are not allowed to do that and get new leases from the taxpayers of this country in ANWR. That is simple fairness. it is simple equity. and the people of this country are entitled to it. I would urge people to support the motion to recommit. and then the bill will go forward and people can decide on whether or not they want to drill in ANWR. I hope they dont. or. if they want to not do that. I hope they will make that decision. But that is independent of this fairness to the taxpayers. to the ratepayers. to the property owners in this country who own these lands that will be put out to bid. that we dont get fleeced twice by a couple of the oil companies that think they can have it both ways.
Date: 2006-05-25
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr.- Chairman. I thank the Panking member. Mr. Chairman. I rise for the purpose of engaging Chairman ROGERS in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman. thank you for your work on this bill. As the ranking member of the Economic Security. Infrastructure and Cybersecurity Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee. I have been working on port security issues for many years. and I was extensively involved in moving the SAFE Port Act that was recently overwhelmingly passed in this House in a very bipartisan manner. One of the topics that we spent a lot of time perfecting in the SAFE Port Act was the authorization of the CTPAT program. The reason for this emphasis was that CTPAT has the potential to be a very effective security program but only if all CTPAT members are validated to be trustworthy and have adequate supply chain security measures in place. In order to help achieve 100 percent validation. I have been a vocal supporter of third party validations provided the proper controls are in place. The SAFE Port Act requires many safeguards and controls in any third party validation program. including requiring CTPAT members to contract with third party validators directly and to pay for those validation costs. So. Mr. Chairman. since both your bill and the SAFEPort Act require 100 percent validations of all CTPAT participants. I want to clarify that the language regarding third party validators contained within your report will not contradict all of the work of the requirements and the controls that we have put into the SAFE Port Act-
Date: 2006-05-25
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. and thank you for that clarification and for your strong Support for improving the CTPAT program.
Date: 2006-06-06
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I thank the ranking member. This amendment attempts to penalize States and localities that have confidentiality policies in place. These policies are supported by our State and our local law enforcement because they encourage immigrant communities to come forward and to report crimes without fearing that immigration status will come under scrutiny. And believe me. back in Orange County. in Anaheim. in Santa Ana and some of the other cities Irepresent. my police chiefs are very adamant about this issue. If crimes are occurring and if the witnesses we have are immigrants. immigrants without documents. if they believe that they will be taken or deported. they are not going to want to come forward and tell us what is happening. This is very important. It is important in hit and drive car accidents. in execution style things that happen in some of the Asian communities. This is a very important issue for our local laW enforcement. The message of this amendment would say. it would intimidate immigrants and it would make them less likely to report the crimes to law enforcement or to assist law enforcement. It would hamper the State and local law enforcements work by intimidating the potential witnesses and community members that would help to solve these crimes. In fact. this is opposed by the National League of Cities. the National Conference of State Legislatures. and the National Association of C6unties. They all oppose this amendment. So please protect local governments independence and choice. Keep local public safety decisions and resources local and oppose this amendment.
Date: 2006-06-06
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. most of us remember Super Bowl XXXVIII. but not for the reason that most of us Houstonians would like. The game was a great showcase for Houston and one of the best in Super Bowl history. The New England Patriots edged out the Carolina Panthers by a score of 32 to 29 in a wild fourth quarter that ended with an Adam Vinatieri field goal with four seconds left. Unfortunately. Americans remember that game for the offensive halftime show featuring Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson. Performers can do whatever they like on their albums. or on subscription services like HBO. and as a Member of Congress I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect all Americans First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and expression. But public obscenity purely designed to shock people has no place on primetime broadcast television using the publics airwaves. Almost every American home has a television and there is nothing a parent can do to protect against indecency on broadcast radio or television. American families should have the right to watch the Super Bowl without expecting indecent performances. and the current FCC fines were clearly not a deterrent. Therefore. this legislation increases the fines for broadcast indecency by 10 times. However. the Commission should only use this power against blameworthy broadcasters. A $325.000 fine is a much bigger stick for the FCC to use against indecent broadcasters. so the level of responsibility of the FCC must also increase. When an independent affiliate airs network programming that turns out to be indecent. the FCC should only punish an affiliate if there was a reasonable opportunity to review questionable taped material or reason to know that such material was likely. In cases where only the network knows what is going on the air. it stands to reason that only the network should bear the burden for such violations. Section 503(b)(2)(D) allows the FCC to con-* sider the circumstances of a violation in determining the amount of a penalty. The Commission should use that power wisely and recognize that you cannot deter indecent programming by fining independent affiliates with no control over the content.
Date: 2006-06-06
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of H.R. 5449. which would move current and future contract disputes between the FAA and the air traffic controllers to the Federal Services Impasse Panel. Current law has an extremely unusual disadvantage for our Nations air traffic controllers: if their union negotiators cannot reach a contract agreement with FAA. then the FAA can impose a contract unless Congress says otherwise within 60 days. The FAA declared an impasse in the negotiations and has stated that they will be imposing their terms unilaterally within a matter of days in the face of majority opposition in Congress. This is an extreme burden that few other American workers. if any. must meet in their contract negotiations. Current FAA contract law grants too much power to the FAA management and makes a mockery of the collective bargaining process. H.R. 5449 is a good compromise. because we as Congress are not taking sides and picking the air traffic controllers contract offer or pick the FAAs contract offer. The bill is good policy because Congress is not the best place to negotiate the details of employment contracts. Instead. this legislation would place the decision in a specialized board that has plenty of experience mediating federal workers contract disputes. The Federal -Services Impasse Panel is fairthey resolve numerous disputes in favor of different sides. sometimes going with the agencies positions and sometimes with federal employees. The air traffic controllers in the Houston Center and the Houston TRACON and throughout Texas deserve the same fair shake in arbitration that other federal workers receive. Much of the opposition to this legislation and to air traffic controllers in general comes from groups that voice kneejerk opposition to any and all federal spending. They fail to offer any answers to the simple fact that air traffic controllers have a hard. complicated job with extremely high stakes. I doubt that many of the opponents to this bill have ever been in an air traffic control tower. or a control center or a TRACON when a large bank of flights comes into a major hub airport. We want our skies to be safe. and you dont get safety by cutting corners and nickel and dimeing the workforce. Our air traffic conlrol system is about to experience a wave of retirements. If we want to recruit quality employees to keep us and our children flying safely into the future. we should approve H.R. 5449.