macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2011-02-16
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Very briefly. and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for confirming the strategy that is being used by our friends on the other side of the aisle. If its good. if it has been good. its time for it to go. Im going to join the gentleman in supporting the gentleman from Oregons amendment and to cite Channel 8 in Houston. Texas. that compensates for bloody domestic fights on domestic or commercial TV during the day and doesnt expose our children to opportunities for learning. I might add. the National Public Radio. as well. has its challenges. So I just hope that as we begin to understand that our economy is churning. that we will invest in our children. which the National Public Radio represents. And as my friend from New York said. Big Bird is still alive. and other new characters have been utilized to teach children. Public broadcast equalizes opportunity for good education in preschool for children who are at home. or in home daycare. to give them an exposure to learning. reading. writing and colorful activities. So let me just say that Im sorry the gentlemans amendment was ruled out of order. It looks as if we have just turned our head away from investing in educationcutting Pell Grants. cutting NIH fellowships and scholarships. cutting public broadcast. It looks like weve just said enough is enough with job creation and lets get rid of education as well. And I ask. of course. that this CR be defeated. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
Date: 2011-02-16
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Chairman. I rise in opposition to this legislation. As my colleague from New Jersey has pointed out and the ranking member of the subcommittee. this amendment. to begin with. seems to make no sense at all. It is interesting. as the gentleman said. you pull the plug. but then everybody is left without a right. There is no private right of action. There is no place to go. There were some 1.571 secret ballot elections for union representation last year that were supervised by the National Labor Relations Board to certify those unions. or to decertify unions in some cases where that action was taken in the secret election. and now there will be no remedy. You wont be able to decertify the union. you wont be able to certify the union. There are employees every day who are fired for simply suggesting to their employer that they would like to have a union. That alone will get you fired over and over again in this country. That employee is now without a job. but no right of action to go back and find out whether that person was wrongfully fired. The same is true if an employer wants to make an allegation of secondary boycott. which is illegal under the law. Where do they go for the remedy? Where do they go? There is no private right of action. It is contained within the National Labor Relations Act. and it is administered by the board. So this amendment just sort of creates chaos. and it denies people rights. be they employers or employees. be they prounion or antiunion. whatever it is. Whatever their situation is. this simply denies them the ability to take advantage of the law or to have the law administered in any way or fashion. and it provides really no alternative to them. because. as I said. this occupies the entire area for these individuals. So I dont know if this law is a temper tantrum. I dont know if this law is justI dont know what the hell it is. But clearly it doesnt address what might be legitimate concerns about the operation of the board. The board has been controversial over the years and back and forth. and people have agreed and disagreed with its rulings and its actions. Or you might want to amend the law. But this amendment doesnt do any of this. And I would certainly hope that we would continuewhen you look around at other countries. I think you would say this is a pretty successful system of managing labor relations in the workplace. It certainly took a history of actions that people considered wrong and dangerous and concerned about the economy. concerned about individual safety. concerned about the safety of workplaces and the ability of businesses to survive. and through the passage of the National Labor Relations Act regularized that so people had a place to go for their complaints and determine their rights. So I would hope that Members of Congress would reject this amendment and maintain the rights of workers and employers to have their concerns addressed and adjudicated. if necessary. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia .
Date: 2011-02-16
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Chair. 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 Georgia will be postponed. The Clerk will read.
Date: 2011-02-17
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the gentleman. I want to thank the Senate for recognizing that we do have a problem. and they recognized it by extending the time frame only for 60 days and not for 1 year. With that in mind. however. its important to note that we are still with the same initiative that has not been subjected to the opportunity for Members of this Congress to. in fact. review closely the idea of the infringement of some of these aspects or some of these provisions as it relates to the infringement that they may have on the constitutional rights of our citizens. Yesterday in a markup. I offered an amendment to affirm that the legislation that we were marking up dealing with tort reform has at least a confirmation that we wanted to respect the Constitution and adhere to the due process rights. And I am glad that the Democratic Members who were there and present voted "yes." and all the Republicans voted "no." I think adhering to the Constitution and ensuring that constitutional provisions are respected is an important concept. In this instance. we have not had the chance for a full hearing. And I am very glad to note. Mr. Speaker. that in the 111th Congress. we did. but unfortunately. even the amendments that were passed in that Congress. bipartisan amendments. were not in this initiative that was passed by the House. I offered amendments to ensure that any surveillance under section 215. where library records could be in question. if you read certain books. And librarians across America were appalled at that intrusion. I offered amendments to ensure that any surveillance of an American is done through established legal procedures pursuant to FISA and the FISA court authority and to ensure that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is indispensable and would play a meaningful role in ensuring compliance with our Constitution. As we voted on bipartisan amendments last year in the 111th Congress. as I indicated. they were not included in this rendition of the bill. In those hearings. multiple concerns were raised about the breadth of the Patriot Act and the leeway it gives to infringe upon an individuals privacy and civil liberties. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee. I. as well. am very. very convinced that we do need to secure our homeland. but human intelligence is a very large part of that. Intruding into the rights of Americans should be done with the care that it deserves. In the markup I also personally introduced amendments that would allow for greater transparency in the Patriot Act and enhanced protection against violation of individuals civil liberties. None of those amendments as introduced by any of my colleagues at that time have been included in this legislation.
Date: 2011-02-17
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chair. on rollcall No. 71. had I been present. I would have voted "yes." Markey Matheson Matsui McCarthy (CA) McCarthy (NY) McCaul McClintock McCollum McCotter McDermott McGovern McHenry McIntyre McKeon McMorris Rodgers McNerney Meehan Meeks Mica Miller (FL) Miller (NC) Miller. Gary Miller. George Moore Moran Mulvaney Myrick Nadler Napolitano Neal Neugebauer Nugent Nunes Nunnelee Olson Olver Owens Palazzo Pallone Pascrell Pastor (AZ) Paulsen Payne Pelosi Perlmutter Peterson Pingree (ME) Platts Polls Posey Price (GA) Price (NC) Quayle Rahall Rangel Rehberg Reyes Richardson Richmond Rigell Rivera Roby Roe (TN) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Rokita Rooney RosLehtinen Roskam Ross (AR) Ross (FL) Rothman (NJ) RoybalAllard Royce Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Sanchez. Linda T. Sanchez. Loretta Sarbanes Scalise Schakowsky Schiff Schilling Schmidt Schrader Schweikert Scott (VA) Scott. David Sensenbrenner Serrano Sessions Sewell Sherman Shimkus Shuler Simpson Sires Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Speier Stark Stearns Stivers Sullivan Sutton Terry Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thornberry Tiberi Tierney Tonko Towns Turner Upton Van Hollen Velazquez Visclosky Walden Walz (MN) Wasserman Schultz Waters Watt Waxman Webster Welch Westmoreland Wilson (FL) Wilson (SC) Wolf Woodall Woolsey Wu Yarmuth Yoder Young (AK) Young (FL) Young (IN)
Date: 2011-02-17
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chair. although I support Secretary Gates call to terminate the Expeditionary Force Vehicle (EFV). I must unfortunately oppose the Woolsey amendment because it also seeks to cancel the Osprey program. whose termination I do not support. The EFV is clearly not a wise use of American tax dollars. It is 14 years behind schedule and estimated to cost 168 percent more than originally estimated. Because of these realities. along with the evolving nature of naval warfare. Secretary Gates. the Secretary of the Navy and the Commandant of the Marine Corps have all recommended that it be terminatedand it was not included in President Obamas FY 12 Budget. By contrast. after overcoming a number of operational and cost concerns. the Osprey has become a top priority for the Marine Corps and does enjoy command support. If I could split this amendment into two separate votes. I would do so. Since I cannot. I will oppose it and continue to pursue a deliberate. program by program approach to finding needed savings in our defense budget. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California .
Date: 2011-02-17
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Weve heard a lot about the Supreme Court decision. Citizens United. and we may agree with that decision or disagree with that decision. But the fact of the matter is thats the law of the land. This amendment does not try to overturn that decision. This amendment is perfectly consistent with that decision. It simply says that when you are spending the money. expending the money. you have to disclose to voters that youre trying to influence their vote. Its the right to know. Now because we are dealing with an appropriations bill. a government spending bill. we cant address all of the entities out there in the country that may be trying to spend money to influence elections.
Date: 2011-02-17
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

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: At the end of the bill (before the short title). insert the following: SEC. . For "Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Justice Assistance" for an additional amount to amounts otherwise made available by this Act for carrying out title I of the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008. as authorized by section 107 of such Act (Public Law 110401). there is hereby appropriated. and the amount made available by this Act for "Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Justice Assistance" is hereby reduced by. $30.000.000. The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Date: 2011-02-17
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise to ask for my colleagues support of an amendment to protect our most vulnerable constituents. our children. This bipartisan amendment is a simple one. It says that child victims of sexual predators should not be forced to fight for funding scraps if deep cuts to the Department of Justice occur. This amendment fences off $30 million within the Department of Justices Justice Assistance Account for child exploitation prevention and interdiction. It ensures that. even in this time of painful budget cuts. that we will protect the most precious and vulnerable among us. Over the last decade. child pornography trafficking has exploded into a multibilliondollar global industry. The majority of both demand and supply is based in the United States and. sadly. most often involves parents or adults that the victim knows and trusts. Tragically. the demand for images of young children being sexually exploited. raped. and even tortured can only be supplied through the continued sexual abuse of more children. Literally. every image of child pornography is a crimescene photo. Several years ago. law enforcement informed Congress that it could identify hundreds of thousands of individuals perpetrating child exploitation offenses online. but admitted it was investigating fewer than 2 percent of these known individuals due to a lack of resources that left them outnumbered and overwhelmed. The vast majority of these identifiable sexual predators remained at large. and their young victims beyond rescue. Congress and the President responded by passing and signing into law the PROTECT Our Children Act. which provides desperately needed resources for the vital Internet Crimes Against Children task forces. These task forces are teams of local. State. and Federal law enforcement agencies and prosecutors that lift the digital fingerprints. rescue the children. and hold perpetrators accountable.
Date: 2011-02-17
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chair. I rise to oppose the CarterRoss Amendment (#165) to H.R. 1. the Continuing Resolution. This amendment would stop the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing and enforcing longoverdue safeguards that will protect our children from toxic air pollution generated by cement kilns. Cement kilns are the thirdlargest source of mercury pollution in America. Mercury is a dangerous chemical that impairs a childs ability to learn. write. walk. talk and read. Mercury especially is a concern for women of childbearing age. unborn babies and young children because studies have found that high levels of exposure damage the developing nervous system. Cement kilns also pump lead. arsenic and dioxins into the air. which can cause cancer. birth defects and other catastrophic health impacts. Last year. EPA finalized standards that will limit this toxic pollution from cement plants. These standards will prevent 2.500 premature deaths. 1.000 emergency room visits. 1.500 heart attacks and 17.000 cases of aggravated asthma every year. Well achieve these health benefits while improving the economy because reduced pollution will allow people to do their jobs and go to work on 130.000 days they would have otherwise missed. Well reduce health care costs by up to $18 billion every year. The benefits of reducing this dangerous pollution are between seven and nineteen times greater than the costs. In fact. despite hyperbolic claims of economic collapse. EPA estimates that as many as 1.300 net new jobs could be created as a result of these new protections. That is because cement plants will employ American workers in building. installing. operating and maintaining the equipment that will keep these dangerous toxins out of our childrens fragile bodies. The Carter amendment would overturn affordable. commonsense protections that provide tremendous benefits at a reasonable cost. As a nurse. mother and grandmother. I urge my colleagues oppose this amendment and protect our children.
Date: 2011-02-17
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Let me do as my good friend from New York did. Mr. SERRANO. and not mention any Presidents name. And I just ask my colleagues. how do youagain. I explain to all of us and hopefully those who are listening. this CR stops work in the middle of its tracks. This is a cutoff of functioning work as we speak. and there is functioning work. Just as we have a prototype of a special master who is attempting to refund to the damaged. the worn and the torn of the BP oil spill. czars. or names that you would call. them are working. And I am reminded of the fact that czars also are an exploratory term that Presidents use to get tasks done that ultimately may be valuable enough that are actually placed in a position that responds to a particular agency. Now. we still call the drug czar the "drug czar." And I am reminded of a number of drug czars who were enormously effective. And the reason for the czar term for the President is to emphasize how important the issue was or is to the American people. Why would my friends desire to tie the hands globally. if you will. in a broadbased amendment that eliminates funding for individuals who are in the course of their work impacting for the American people. whether its the TARP. whether its the BP oil spill? They are in fact helping get through a difficult problem. The very nature of the term. a difficult problem. So I would say to my friends. as I will be saying later about an amendment that has been offered. but Im disturbed about denying funding to the Transportation Security Administration. What I would say in cutting their office not recognizing the value of their work. I would likewise say that it is crucial that we allow the Presidents. plural. to establish difficult tasks and to be able to select individuals to complete those tasks. I rise to oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2011-02-17
Speaker: AL GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Madam Speaker. I think I now understand what Dr. King meant when he said that the truest measure of the person is not where the person stands in times of comfort and convenience. but rather. where do you stand in times of great challenge and controversy. This is a time of challenge and controversy that will measure our truest measure as people of goodwill. I ask anyone to show me the empirical evidence connoting that we should reduce funds to get better service. to get better scrutiny. to get better cops on the beat with the SEC. Every police department in this country has some problem or has had some problem. No one would say lets eliminate the police department because it has not performed up to a standard of 100 percent. The SEC is not perfect but what it does is this: It oversees 38.000 entities. 11.450 investment advisers. and these investment advisers are managing $33 trillion. Some things bear repeating. These investment advisers. 11.450 of them. are managing $33 trillion. Do we really want to take the cops off the beat? Would we ever make such an announcement as it relates to any police department in this country? Let us stop for just a moment and take a deep breath and understand what is about to take place here. We are about to send a signal to those who would perform dastardly deeds that we are going to allow you to do this with impunity. not because we want you to do so. ostensibly. but because there will not be the deterrent in place that we know should exist to prevent them from doing these dastardly deeds. So Im going to ask all of my friends on both sides to stop. take a deep breath. and let us ask ourselves: In this time of challenging controversy. will we prevent the SEC from overseeing the 7.600 mutual funds as they properly should. from overseeing the 5.000 brokerdealers as they properly should. from overseeing more than 10.000 companies as they properly should. 35.000 entities as they properly should? This is a time of challenge and controversy. and I am proud to say that I am going to stand for making sure that those who invest are properly protected. This is our time. This is a moment to stand up and be counted. And I hope that every investor out there will look to see who stood for making sure that investments are properly protected and that the integrity of the system is properly in place. I stand for doing the right thing. and the right thing is to make sure that this SEC has the right amount of capital in place to protect our investors and our investments. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts .
Date: 2011-02-17
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

I move to strike the last word in opposition to the amendment. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Date: 2011-02-17
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chair. I move to strike the last word. The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Date: 2011-02-17
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chair. I rise today to express my opposition to the Pence amendment and efforts to eliminate the Title X family planning program. Title X funding has connected millions of American women with essential health care since it was created forty years ago. Given that federal funds. including those provided through Title X funding. are already banned from being used for abortion service. the real impact of this proposal is that over 5 million Americans will lose access to health care servicesincluding important preventive care. such as cancer screenings. annual exams. and contraception. This is a time when we should be focused on creating jobs. helping middleclass families. and encouraging innovation. not restricting access to health care for millions of Americans. Thank you Mr. Chair. I urge my colleagues to oppose these efforts to eliminate Title X funding.
Date: 2011-02-18
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I have a parliamentary inquiry. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia would need to yield for a parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
Date: 2011-02-18
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. is it a violation of the House rules wherein Members are not permitted to make disparaging references to the President of the United States? In two previous gentlemens statements on the amendment. both of them referred to the Affordable Care Act. which is the accurate title of the health care reform law. as ObamaCare. That is a disparaging reference to the President of the United States. it is meant as a disparaging reference to the President of the United States. and it is clearly in violation of the House rules against that. The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has stated a hypothetical. The Chair will not issue an advisory opinion. but will inform all Members that remarks in debate must avoid personalities. including personalities toward the President.