macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2012-06-07
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank you very much. Mr. PRICE is absolutely right. I serve as the ranking member on the Transportation Security Committee on Homeland Security. and a riskbased. welltrained professional team is what we have been working toward and what we are achieving. I ask my colleagues to remember America pre9/11 without a professional workforce. And Id also like to say that in spite of the citations of inappropriate behavior. which none of us condone. there are thousands and thousands of untold stories of TSO officers doing their job. providing the safety lines for the safety of this Nation and providing assistance to the traveling public. How do I know? Because I make it a habit of visiting airports and seeing our TSO officers work and interacting with them and asking them how long they have served. Many of them came in after 9/11 because they could not sit idly by while the Nation had been attacked. Many of them are former law enforcement officers. former military personnel who believed that they were serving their Nation. What is a badge? It is a dignity that is allowed to those who are on the front lines of the Nations security. What is a uniform? It is a consistent statement that you are authorized to do your duty. And I would simply say in the mistakes that occur in any body. whatever body it might be. local law enforcement. the United States military. do we strip them of their gear because of incidental or arbitrary incidents that individuals perpetrate? In this instance. we have a majority of heroic. firstline individuals who want to do better. Can we do better? Absolutely. But it is not done through the removal of the badge or the removal of the uniform. I would just say to my colleagues that we have been blessed since the tragedy of 9/11. but I am reminded of the tragedy of 9/11. and Im reminded of the heroic souls who lost their lives. families who still mourn. And Im reminded of the effort of this Congress and the administration at that time. President George Bush. to answer the call. The TSA was part of answering that call. It is our duty. I believe. to ensure that professional service. to allow them to serve. and to ensure that they are serving the American public. With that. I ask my colleagues to oppose the gentlelady from Tennessees amendment.
Date: 2012-06-07
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

I would just like to make a brief comment. because I actually share the concern thats been expressed about TSA agents randomly going out. I had an incident such as that in the city of San Jose. and I find it improper and highly objectionable. However. the concern I have in this amendment is. as Mr. PRICE has said. you could not utilize this workforce and say. Okay. were having the Republican convention. we need an all hands on deck to do security. If this amendment passes. that would be off limits. If you had an actual articulable threat where you needed expertise. you couldnt use them. So I think that is a mistake. even though I want to say I think the issue youve raised is a solid one and I agree with you. Its just I think the amendment goes way beyond the issue that we agree on. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Date: 2012-06-07
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

I would just like to note that there is a differenceand obviously the gentleman has a right to refine his amendmentbetween the original version of the amendment that we saw. which had a provision that allowed for the termination in certain cases. For example. when the Inspector General determined that a term of the agreement was violated. the amendment before us no longer has that provision. I think its an important distinction. In addition to the very high costs of over $33.000 to find and remove an alien under this program. there are complicated agreements that are engaged in between the localities and the Federal Government. If they arent adhered to. there needs to be an enforcement action. and that would not be the case under this amendment. I would note also that. if localities no longer think its worth itbecause. really. theyre entering into agreements that cost them. tooits time that might be better spent doing something else. If they say that this is not working outwe want to terminate itI dont think. under this amendment. they would be able to do it because the Federal Government would need to respond to their requests and terminate. Finally. as Mr. PRICE has indicated. this is a program that. although I think had good intentions. didnt work out the way people thought. That sometimes happens in law. and it often happens in immigration law. Its expensive. Its in fewer than 100 localities in the United States. and many of them are rethinking it. The terms and conditions have frequently not been adhered to. In some notorious cases. there have been flagrant violations of civil rights. and the Department has had to go in and yank contracts. Even in the cases where there havent been really outrageous civil rights violations. there have been problems. I think there are likely better and more costeffective ways to enforce the immigration laws. which is why the Department has notified us that it is its intention to begin notifying communities just this spring that its not going to be considering any further requests from State and local jurisdictions. That current policy would be permitted under this amendment. and they dont have to accept any more. so we would be stuck with the 68 that we haveno more. no less. I dont think thats a sensible way to proceed on the enforcement of the immigration law. and I think the amendment. although Im sure wellintentioned. would not enhance the enforcement of law.
Date: 2012-06-07
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would. in joining my opposition to the amendment. note that the amendment before us actually does not prevent highway funds and other funds from going to socalled sanctuary cities at all. Further. I would note. as Mr. PRICE has done. that these socalled sanctuary laws really very rarely. if at all. from the record. have to do with communicating between the locality and the Federal Government. They have to do with what the locality is doing and their own citizens. In many urban parts of the country. police chiefs have made a decision that they need to trust their communities to be witnesses to crime. to come forward. to cooperate with the police. and that they do not want to play the role of immigration police. They want to be the real police. That is a decision that localities can make. provided that they do not run afoul of the 1996 act that prohibits the restrictions on sending and receiving information. Heres the deal: you can say were not going to disrupt this community because of our need to get the trust of the community. but you cant prohibit the communication with the Federal Government. I think that this amendment will not achieve anything. The law is already clear. It passed in 1996. I would further note that there is a case. it had to do with gun control. Its called the Prince case. and what it says is that the Federal Government cannot commandeer local and State governments to enforce the Federal law. If thats really what the intent is here. it would violate the Supreme Court decision saying that you cant use the power of the Federal Government to force cities to enforce gun control laws. I would say you couldnt do that to force cities to enforce immigration laws either. That would be the Prince case. This amendment doesnt matter. really. whether the amendment is approved or not because. as I indicated and Mr. PRICE has indicated. this has been part of our law since 1996.
Date: 2012-06-08
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. we can do better. As we work to ensure the tranquility of this great land and the opportunity for those who desire and deserve jobs. I frankly. think. it is likewise a devastating disaster. a crisis. that the world has not risen to stop the bloodshed in Syria. I realize that we are not ready to engage in war. and I say that we do not have to. Syrian Americans are just pleading for the world to intervene. for Dr. Assad to step down. for the ceasefire to take place. and for the killing of women and children to stop. I join with the administration to ask for Dr. Assad to be removed. I ask the Arab League. I ask the surrounding neighbors to stand up against this increasing violence. To the Syrian Americans that I have stood with in Houston. I stand with you until Dr. Assad is removed and the violence is stopped. The United Nations has moved towards a resolution of peace. and Russia and China must stop standing in the way and watching bloodshed pour. Remember. children are dying. Dr. Assad in Syria must leave and peace must come.
Date: 2012-06-08
Speaker: KEITH ELLISON (democrat)
Chamber: H

Youve been on this issue for a long time. I know in your area youve been very. very concerned about the issues that are in the American Jobs Act. Please join us.
Date: 2012-06-18
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. the crisis in Syria is getting worse and worse and worse. I join with the United Nations. but I ask that the Arab League and NATO raise their voices to remove women and children and the elderly and the disabled and the sick from this onslaught of violence. And I ask the head of Russia. Mr. Putin. does he have a heart? Is he going to continue on the basis of ego and collaboration. determined that he allow the violence against the Syrian people to continue? I ask my Christian friends in Syria. as well. to join with the world of humanity to stop the violence against women and children. It is time now.
Date: 2012-06-19
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank my colleague. the ranking member on the Rules Committee. for allowing me to speak. Im a strong supporter and an original cosponsor or of the U.S. Call Center Worker and Consumer Protection Act. This legislation will help us protect U.S. consumers and level the playing field for American workers who have seen thousands of call center jobs needlessly sent offshore in recent years. Namely. this bill would require the call center to notify the Secretary of Labor at least 120 days before relocating outside the United States. It would require the Department of Labor to publicly list the firms that have moved call center jobs overseas and then make those very firms ineligible for any direct or indirect Federal loan for 5 years. To protect consumers. this legislation requires call center employees to notify U.S. consumers where they are located. if asked. and will require that call center to transfer calls to an American call center for questions. The U.S. Call Center Worker and Consumer Protection Act has support of both sides of the aisle. and I ask all my colleagues in the Chamber to stand with American consumers particularly. but also with these American jobs. and support this legislation and. again. support the effort to make sure we can have a vote on the House floor for that.
Date: 2012-06-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chair. todays Conservation and Economic Growth Act is an amalgam of 14 separate public lands bills that have little to do with conservation or economic growth. Indeed. while a few of the provisionslike Rep. WITTMANs proposal to create an interagency crosscut budget for Chesapeake Bay restoration effortshave merit. many more run directly counter to sound natural resource management. For example. under the guise of border control. Title 14 of todays bill would create a 100 mile zone along our borders with Canada and Mexico where over thirty of environmental lawsincluding the Clean Air Act. the Safe Drinking Water Act and the National Environmental Protection Actwould not apply. There is no evidence that any of these laws are hindering border enforcement. and the Department of Homeland Security is firmly opposed to this measure. Title 11 of this legislation would similarly undermine the National Environmental Protection Act while providing a windfall to those who graze livestock on federal lands by doubling the current term limits for grazing permits. And Title 3 of H.R. 2578 is essentially an earmark for a single corporation in the state of Alaska. which threatens both the local economy as well as the largest tracts of remaining old growth forest in the United States. Mr. Chair. I support environmental conservation and meaningful steps to accelerate economic growthwhich is why I will be opposing todays legislation.
Date: 2012-06-19
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. We are really excited. This is the fourth annual congressional womens softball game. We are the defending champions. We beat the Bad News Babes last year. We have expanded our team. We have the gentlelady from Alabama whos a ringer this year. Mrs. ROBY. You should come out and see her play. shes got some skills. So even though the press corps has been talking some good trash. and theyre even apparently practicing on the beach while at the G20. we have jelled as a team. come together in a bipartisan. bicameral way. And between our superior fielding. hitting. and strategic approach to the game. we look forward to continuing as the champions of the Annual Congressional Womens Softball Game. Its 7 p.m. tomorrow night. Watkins Recreation Center. Come on out. encourage your staff. This year it is a $10 entry fee. but all for a good cause. to raise money for the Young Survival Coalition. which is an organization that raises awareness and supports young survivors of breast cancer. And I would just conclude by thanking all Members and staff. as a breast cancer survivor myself. and a young one at that. it is so personally and prevailed by voice vote. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
Date: 2012-06-19
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the gentleman from Minnesota and the manager. and my friends on the other side of the aisle. This is an important. crucial motion to instruct. Crucial is the word. And I thank the gentleman for recognizing that while we are here. others are languishing. bridges are languishing. highways are languishing. ports. and even our mass transit concerns are languishing because we have not moved forward. One. two. three. four. fiveI think were up to five extensions the last 5 to 7 years. if my counting is correct. But most importantly. let me congratulate Members from both sides of the aisle that have come forward to support the gentlemans motion to instruct. which evidences how crucial this motion is and how we need to move beyond the many. many conference calls that I know that those conferees who are in are getting from so many interest groups. and indicate that we need to move forward and bring a report forward that will not stop us from continuing to negotiate on some of the many sidebar issues. But as we languish. were losing jobs. As we languish. Americans are unemployed. As we languish. bridges continue to crumble. I remember our good friend. Chairman Oberstar. who taught us a few years ago that if you pass a transportation and infrastructure bill. you put America back to work. Tragically. as he was speaking some years ago. tragically one of his own bridges in that area had a very devastating impact in the fracturing of that bridge. We dont want to see that anymore. We want to be able to see people going to work. And so I simply would ask that this motion to instruct be followed. Bring to the floor in a conference report not later than June 22. 2012. the ability to pass this legislation.
Date: 2012-06-19
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Bring to the floor this conference report. put to work people in Texas. fix bridges and put to work people in Minnesota. Virginia. New York. across the Nation. south. north. east and west. and begin to solve separate difficult problems. if I might say. on the side. I want to see our workers working. many of our friends in the IBEW and building trades and many other supporting unions for the machinists and others. working. I believe this is a bipartisan message. Lets do it now.
Date: 2012-06-20
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Madam Speaker. the Constitution is an enormously important document. The oversight of Congress is an enormously important responsibility. Lives lost in the course of various activities of our law enforcement are issues that we take with great concern. As a member of the Judiciary Committee. it has been my responsibility over the years. from impeachments to Waco to issues beyond. to look deep into the facts. and I respect that. Im appalled. however. when the chief law enforcement officer of the United States is called a liar. And I stand on this floor to reject any thought that a United States Attorney that takes an oath of office would lie. We can find a resolution to the facts of Fast and Furious. started under the Bush administration. that have been reinvestigated and reinvestigated. But we do not have to malign Attorney General Holder for doing his job. And I would ask this Congress to ultimately reject any contempt charge against the chief law enforcement officer. and to denounce lying.
Date: 2012-06-20
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4480. the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act. While I support pieces of H.R. 4480. unfortunately I am not able to vote for the bill because I believe it will actually create more regulatory confusion and impediments for our domestic producers. Title I. for example. requires the Secretary of Energy to develop a plan to increase domestic oil and gas leasing from onshore and offshore federal lands that are under the jurisdiction of the Departments of Agriculture. Energy. Interior. and Defense within 180 days of a release of petroleum from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. A new government bureaucracy at the Department of Energy would develop this plan. which duplicates the oil and gas leasing programs at the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. During a House Energy and Commerce Hearing on the bill. the Secretary of Energy expressed many concerns about their ability to effectively do this. I am also concerned with Title III of the bill. which would overturn the multipleuse principle established in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. This would undermine the basic principal which has guided the management of public lands for 35 years. I also have concerns with Section 206 of the bill. which would require the Environmental Protection Agency to consider industry costs when determining what level of air pollution is "safe." By doing this we would be rolling back one of the core aspects of the Clean Air Acta requirement that was passed on a bipartisan basis over 40 years ago. signed into law by a Republican President and unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in 2001. I plan to offer an amendment that would strike section 206 and I hope that my colleagues will support it. As a strong supporter of policies that encourage and support domestic energy production. my hope is that in the future. the House takes up legislation that deals with this important issue without including controversial policy riders that prevent bipartisan support in the House and movement in the Senate.
Date: 2012-06-20
Speaker: GENE GREEN (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 14. lines 1 through 9. strike section 206 (relating to consideration of feasibility and cost in revising or supplementing national ambient air quality standards for ozone). The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691. the gentleman from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Date: 2012-06-20
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of my amendment. I would like to vote for this bill. but it goes way too far. Mr. Chairman. I represent five large refineries and 20plus chemical plants. so Im very sensitive to what regulatory compliance can mean to a companys economic success. But for over 40 years. the Clean Air Act has required the Environmental Protection Agency to set the level of each ambient air quality standard based on what is necessary to protect public health. They do this because EPAs job is health. not economic impacts. Again. for over 40 years. Republicans and Democrats have agreed to this principle. which was passed on a bipartisan basis in the 1970s and signed into law by a Republican President and unanimously upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001. This amendment would strike section 206 of the bill. which would require the EPA to consider industry costs when determining what level of air pollution is "safe." But economic and compliance costs are already considered several times throughout the regulatory process. which is why section 206 is not necessary. The EPA conducts a regulatory impact analysis for a range of emission standards when they propose the standard. Then they do a second regulatory impact analysis when they choose the final standard before it is sent to the Office of Management and Budget for review. The regulatory process works. Last September. the Office of Management and Budget did not allow EPA to move forward with a revised ozone NAAQS standard because they felt that the costs of compliance would be too high for the regulated industries at this point in our economic recovery. To use a Texas saying. lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Section 206 is a policy rider that undermines 40 years of bipartisan agreement. and I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment that would strike it. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2012-06-20
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I want to thank my colleague from Colorado because the system does work. Even the President used economics. But thats the Presidents job. not the EPA. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. the gentleman from California .
Date: 2012-06-20
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I appreciate my colleague and your work on the committee. but thats why we need to remove 206. That provision actually takes away health and safety as EPAs primary responsibility. Thats what it was created for in 1970. We already have a system that will work to deal with the economic problems. We go to OMB. But even more so. we can go to the States. Because once EPA and OMB approves that rule. then they go to the States to work out the compliance. And in our district. where I have a huge industrial capacity. we actually work with our State agency and EPA to make sure we can economically do that within a timeframe. Thats why this amendment should be acceptable. Mr. Chairman. and I would encourage Members to vote for this amendment when it comes up for a vote tomorrow. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas .
Date: 2012-06-20
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

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 Texas will be postponed.