macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2016-05-25
Speaker: AL GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I thank Ranking Member KAPTUR. Please allow me to continue with just a brief commentary. I have a colleague who is not here. the Honorable GENE GREEN. He has asked that his statement with reference to this amendment be placed in the RECORD. I would also add this. A good deal of my comments have emanated from. as I indicated. H.R. 5025. This bill has bipartisan support. I see in the Chamber my good friend and colleague. the Honorable TED POE. who is one of the cosponsors of the legislation. Some of my other colleagues who are cosponsoring from Texas would include the Honorable JOHN CULBERSON. the Honorable RANDY WEBER. the Honorable SHEILA JACKSON LEE. also the Honorable GENE GREEN whom I have mentioned. There are others as well. This is bipartisan. This is a recognition that we are going to have problems that we can solve that will create greater circumstances than we should have to endure. There is little reason for us to be back here a year or so from now indicating that we have had another flood. a billiondollar floodmaybe less. maybe moreand that we may have lost lives in that future event. My hope is that. while this amendment is not in orderand I accept the ruling of the Chairmy hope is that we will find a means by which we will do sooner that which we will do later. spend the $311 million after we have had additional billiondollar floods. This amendment makes good sense. It is a commonsense solution. I thank the ranking member for her very kind words and the opportunity that she has accorded me. I thank you. Mr. SIMPSON. for being so generous as well.
Date: 2016-05-25
Speaker: SEAN PATRICK MALONEY (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: New York

Mr. Chairman. may I have the amendment read back? Does it include only the First Amendment. the 14th Amendment. and the Equal Protection Clause? The Acting CHAIR. Without objection. the amendment to the amendment will be reported.
Date: 2016-05-25
Speaker: SEAN PATRICK MALONEY (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: New York

Mr. Chair. I would like to ask my colleague what is meant by Article I of the Constitution. if he could clarify that for us. No one who supports my amendmentcertainly. not Ihas any problem with the First Amendment. the 14th Amendment. particularly the Equal Protection Clause. or with Article I of the Constitution. I assure the gentleman. I also. however. would noteand I am sure the gentleman would appreciatethat many times throughout American history. Presidents. under their authority under the Constitution. have acted in the area of workplace discrimination. particularly in the executive branch. For example. would the gentleman oppose President Trumans action to integrate the armed services? Perhaps he would like that order to be circumscribed in some way. if he thinks that violates Article I of the Constitution. the 14th Amendment. or the First Amendment to the Constitution? In other words. the President has. throughout American history. under his constitutional authority. taken actions to widen the circle of opportunity and to end discrimination in the executive branch. Nothing in my amendment is in any way at odds with the Constitution of the United States or the amendments thereto. but it should not be allowed to go unchallenged on the floor of this House to suggest that President Obama. in his executive action in 2014. ran afoul of any of those things either. Indeed. I am unaware of any legal challenge to the Presidents action in those executive orders of 2014. It is pretty clear to me that. if there was something illegal or unconstitutional about them. there would have been a challenge. I dont think anybody seriously contests the Presidents authority to do what he did in 2014. and many Americans welcome it as one of the signature equal protection actions by a Commander in Chief or by a President of the United States. So. far from being concerned about reconciling our activities with the Constitution. we believe they are perfectly consistent. Therefore. I would ask the gentleman if he would be willing to also include. since we are so fond of the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution which specifies the powers of the President? If the gentleman would answer that question. In other words. if we are so fond of the Constitution. what do you say we follow the whole thing. including the Civil War amendments. including some of the things about equal protection and due process. You might have heard something about that. We had a little bit dispute about that in the mid19th century. What do you say we abide by the whole Constitution. the part that tries to make it more progressive. more inclusive of people like me. of people of color. of women. of people who are shut out when it was written? How about we include the whole Constitution? Can we do that? The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will address his remarks to the Chair.
Date: 2016-05-25
Speaker: SEAN PATRICK MALONEY (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: New York

Mr. Chairman. how about we include the whole Constitution? Can we do that? Hearing no objection. I assume we are including the entire Constitution. including the powers of the President under Article II. Mr. Chair. I reserve the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has yielded back his time. Therefore. the gentleman from New York is recognized on the amendment to the amendment.
Date: 2016-05-25
Speaker: SEAN PATRICK MALONEY (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: New York

Well. then. let me just say again. the point of todays vote is to redo a mistake that was made in this House. But of course it wasnt really a mistake. was it? It was an effort to change the outcome of a bipartisan majority supporting an amendment to end discrimination in Federal contracting. So today. what we are doing is getting a second bite at that apple. giving Members a chance to vote their conscience. to do the right thing. free from any pressure. free from any vote swapping or switching. free from a clock being held open long after it should have closed. The American people want to know if their government is on the level. so lets have this vote on the level. We know there is a bipartisan majority for equality in this House. and. if allowed a fair vote. we know what the outcome will be. I look forward to that vote. Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2016-05-25
Speaker: SEAN PATRICK MALONEY (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: New York

Mr. Chairman. I want to make it perfectly clear that we stand here as servants of the Constitution. all of us. and all of the actions we take here are subject to that beautiful document. as amended. So there is nothing about the gentlemans amendment. to the extent that it simply restates what is obvious which is that all of our actions are subject to the Constitution. that we would object to. My only point is simply that we need to read it as a whole document. We dont need to read anything into it. We can read the text. We can understand the history of the text. We can understand the global and expansive nature of the language written into the Constitution after the searing experience of the Civil War around equal protection. around due process. We dont fear the Constitution. we welcome it. We embrace it. We claim it as our own when we come to this floor and ask that the circle of opportunity be widened for others who have been excluded before. We think that is in the best tradition of the American Constitution. We believe the Constitution provides a series of promises that. as King said. it is a promissory note and that a check was written. we are coming to cash it so we will all be treated equally. so we will all be treated fairly. that we all count. Regardless of who we love. regardless of the color of our skin. whether we walk in or roll in. we believe we all count. And we believe that the Constitution enshrines those values in the most beautiful way in all of human history. So. far from being concerned in any way by the gentlemans amendment. we welcome it. But let it not detract from the fact that what happened in this House was an effort to enshrine and rationalize discrimination under Federal law. And despite the success we had in defeating that with a bipartisan majority. there were those here who wanted to perpetuate discrimination at the expense of equality. That is inconsistent with the Constitution. Mr. Chairman. And let that be the final word on this.
Date: 2016-05-25
Speaker: SEAN PATRICK MALONEY (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: New York

Mr. Chairman. I demand a recorded vote. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII. further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. as amended. will be postponed.
Date: 2016-05-25
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chair. again I thank Mr. SIMPSON for recounting that information and Ms. KAPTUR for the leadership that she has given and the understanding of the plight that we are in. Flood control is critical to dams and harbors. and it is most critical of all as infrastructure. That is what the construction funding will do. We understand that this now will give us the opportunity for long overdue projects that are dealing with major flooding. The previous amendment giving us a work plan through the Army Corps of Engineers will again be instructive and helpful to saving lives and reducing the enormity of loss and the enormity of damage that has been caused to these areas. I ask for support of the Jackson Lee amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas .
Date: 2016-05-25
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. I was detained in my district on official business on May 24. 2016. and I missed the following rollcall votes: Rollcall vote No. 238. I would have voted "yes." Rollcall vote No. 237. I would have voted "no." Rollcall vote No. 236. I would have voted "yes." Rollcall vote No. 235. I would have voted "no." Rollcall vote No. 234. I would have voted "no." Rollcall vote No. 233. I would have voted "no." Rollcall vote No. 232. I would have voted "no." Rollcall vote No. 231. I would have voted "no." Madam Speaker. on Tuesday. May 24. 2016. I was attending to representational duties in my congressional district and was not present for Roll Call Votes 231 through 238. I ask the record to reflect that had I been present I would have voted as follows: 1. On Roll Call 238. I would have voted yes. (H.R. 2576On Concurring in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment to Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Centu ry Act) 2. On Roll Call 237. I would have voted no. (H.R. 897On Passage of the Zika Vector Control Act) 3. On Roll Call 236. I would have voted yes. (H.R. 897On Motion to Recommit with Instructions the Zika Vector Control Act) 4. On Roll Call 235. I would have voted no. (H.R. 5077On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass. as Amended the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017) 5. On Roll Call 234. I would have voted no. (H. Res. 742On Agreeing to the Resolution Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act. and for other purposes. and providing for consideration of the bill Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act. and for other purposes) 6. On Roll Call 233. I would have voted no. (H. Res. 742On Ordering the Previous Question Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act. and for other purposes. and providing for consideration of the bill Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act. and for other purposes) 7. On Roll Call 232. I would have voted no. (H. Res. 743On Agreeing to the Resolution Providing for consideration of the bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30. 2017. and for other purposes) 8. On Roll Call 231. I would have voted no. (H. Res. 743On Ordering the Previous Question Providing for consideration of the bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30. 2017. and for other purposes)
Date: 2016-05-25
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. as we go home for the Memorial Day commemoration to honor the fallen in battle. as we go home to commemorate the next step in the lives of many of the graduates in our district. it is shameful that we have not completed our work on the full funding to fight the Zika virus crisis and respond to the Presidents request for $1.9 billion. Before I left my district on Monday. we had a major press conference with the mayor. the county commissioner. doctors. and others expressing their apprehension and concern about the dangerousness of the Zika virus. We are trying to inform our constituents. but we are also pleading for resources to clean up sitting water and tires and to be able to continue the research for a vaccine. One of our experts indicated that they didnt know how dangerous the Zika virus will be. Madam Speaker. it is important that we do our job. It is appropriate to take the Presidents request and pass it$1.9 billionto do our job to fight the Zika virus.
Date: 2016-05-26
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the 39.000 Verizon workers currently on strike. These hardworking members of CWA and IBEW are on strike for a number of reasons. but the number one reason is to keep their jobs and prevent them from being shipped overseas to the Philippines or India. What Verizon is doing is not unique. In fact. it has been the experience of too many families in my district in Houston and Harris County and families throughout the country. As Members of Congress. we have a responsibility to fight for these jobs and improve the lives of average Americans. This spring. I introduced bipartisan legislation. the United States Call Center Worker and Consumer Protection Act. H.R. 4604. that would make companies that offshore American jobs ineligible for Federal grants or loans and put them at the back of the line for Federal contracts. This legislation will not stop all offshoring. but it is a strong first step to protect these middle class jobs. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bipartisan legislation. H.R. 4604.
Date: 2016-05-26
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I urge the House to take meaningful action to address the public health crisis that the Centers for Disease Control recently called scarier than we originally thought. and to support the Presidents request for supplemental funding for the Zika virus as outlined in H.R. 5044. the FY16 Zika supplemental appropriations. I thank Appropriations Ranking Member NITA LOWEY and Labor. Health and Human Services. Education. and Related Agencies Subcommittee Ranking Member DELAURO for their ongoing leadership to help protect our constituents. More than 120 Floridians now have the Zika virus. including 36 pregnant women. Last week there were an estimated 157 pregnant women in the continental United States and 122 more in the territories who have contracted Zika. The House must take real action to protect our citizens. It is an outrage that we are not adequately responding to the calls of public health officials at the Federal. State. and local levels who are clanging the alarm bells. imploring Congress to act. Last week the House approved a Zika bill that is absolutely unacceptable. The bill the House passed would raid existing public health accounts. a dangerous precedent to set for appropriately responding to public health crises. This is an approach that Dr. Fauci of the National Institutes of Health. the socalled Zika czar. has called illogical. Furthermore. it only authorizes use of funds through September 30th. Let me assure you that mosquitos carrying the Zika virus do not adhere to a congressional calendar. The Republican bill does nothing to specifically help Puerto Rico where Zika is wreaking the most havoc and where close to 1.000 people have been infected. We need more funds now to equip our local health centers with testing kits. We need to assure the National Institutes of Health that there is sustained funding to develop a vaccine as well as a cure. and we need to protect our constituents. That is our responsibility. It continues to baffle and frustrate so many of us that the majority wishes to address this crisis. this public health crisis. by combatting Zika through robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is irresponsible. It is immoral. And the majority will have to look in the eyes of the mothers who have contracted the Zika virus beyond the point of which we will have lost control of the ability to contain this virus and this public health crisis. look those mothers in the eye and explain why they did nothing to ensure that their babies were not born with birth defects. It is unconscionable. and we need to act now. I urge the House to support the full request for funds and vote "no" on the previous question.
Date: 2016-05-26
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. during this season when the American people are selecting the next Commander in Chief. I would like to offer that this is a time to discuss the issues of economic opportunity. a time for discussion of furthering health care. and working to create jobs for the American people. This is not the time for the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party to call for debates that are frivolous and for entertainment. We in the United States Congress have to do our jobs. We need to confirm the next United States Supreme Court Justice. The Senate needs to do its job under the Constitution. We need to pass $1.9 billion for the Zika virus because right now 200plus pregnant women are infected with the Zika virus here in the United States of America. and one child born with the impact of brain damage. no brain. will cost us $10 million. $1 million a year. It is time now that we respond in a responsible manner. and those who are seeking the Presidency of the United States must stop the frivolousness and the downgrading of the Constitution and the denigrating of the people of the United States of America. I look forward to a vigorous debate. and I look forward to an election in November befitting the American people.
Date: 2016-06-07
Speaker: DANNY K. DAVIS (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Illinois

Mr. Speaker. I want to commend and congratulate Chairman TIBERI and Ranking Member MCDERMOTT for having put together an outstanding piece of legislation. While we applaud it for being bipartisan. I applaud it because it is good. It actually helps to meet needs that exist. It protects hospitals and gives them the opportunity to provide a better level of patient care. I attended. just last week. the opening of an outpatient center that St. Bernard Hospital in the Englewood community of Chicago had put together. Of course. everybody in the community was there because everybody recognized that innercity hospitals. disproportionate share hospitals. and medical centers that are complex need all of the protection that they can get. and we need to have a better understanding of readmission policies and practices and why some are different than others. These gentlemen have put together a piece of legislation that all of us can be proud of. I strongly support it and thank them for their diligence. for their cooperation. and for their tremendous efforts to do a good bill.
Date: 2016-06-08
Speaker: TED LIEU (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chair. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4775. the Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016. Protecting our air from dirty pollution should not be a partisan issue. We all want to breathe clean air. We all want our children to be able to play outside without risking an asthma attack due to high ozone levels. Last year. the Environmental Protection Agency finalized new ozone rules designed to protect the health of all Americans. particularly those communities which are at higher risk for smog. H.R. 4775 would delay this rule and critically undermine the Clean Air Act. jeopardizing Americans health. In my home state of California. smog used to be so bad that people were not allowed to go outside. We have made a lot of progress since then. and the last smog alert in California occurred in 1997. H.R. 4775 represents a step backward in our nations fight for cleaner air. and I urge my colleagues to vote.
Date: 2016-06-08
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chair. the Ozone issue is extremely complicated. Many of our Members are probably not very familiar with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard. let alone the potential impact. In 1993. the Environmental Protection Agency faced a choice similar to that of 2016. After missing the 1988 and 1992 Ozone NAAQS review deadlines. the EPA settled a court decree that required a decision on whether the Agency would promulgate a new Ozone standard. The EPA stated the following: "Based on applicable statutory requirements and the volume of material requiring careful evaluation. the EPA estimates that it would take 2 to 3 years to incorporate over a 1.000 new health studies into criteria documents. Given various legal constraints and the fact that EPA already missed deadlines for completion of Ozone review cycles. the Administrator concluded that the best course of action is to complete the current review based on the existing air standard and proceed as rapidly as possible with the next review." In 2015. the Administrator stated at the Energy and Power subcommittee hearing. "EPA examined thousands of scientific studies. including more than 1.000 new studies published since EPA last revised the standard." Further. EPA. in the Ozone NAAQS proposal concluded. "there are significant uncertainties regarding some of the studies the EPA did include regarding lowering the standard." EPA acknowledged there are issues with the proposed standard stating. "Given alternative views of the currently available evidence and information expressed by some commenters. the EPA is taking comment on both the Administrators proposed decision to revise the current primary 03 standard and the option of retaining that standard." EPA must address the challenges and opportunities for improving our air quality and protecting human health. The process must remain healthbased but cannot be set aside when it is politically convenient. Our industries are capable of meeting the requirements of Ozone NAAQS but not when the rules are changed or not enforced due to unknown criteria. I support the EPAs determination but I do think there is opportunity to address some of the challenges faced by both the Agency and other stakeholders. While I do not support the bill today. I look for opportunities to improve the process to promote the economy and public health. The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired. Pursuant to the rule. the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows: H.R. 4775 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.