macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2007-08-02
Speaker: HERSETH SANDLIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. let me say at the outset. the gentleman from Arizona said this is a solesource contract to one entity and we already have an entity in USDA an agency that would make these grants based on competition. This is not a solesource contract. Four universities are involved in the consortium. and its a competitivebased program. So my colleague. from Arizonas attempting to strike from the bill an extremely modest amount of funding for an outstanding program thats provided tremendous benefits to ranch families in one of the most remote and economically challenged corners of the United States. The economy of this area of the country. western North and South Dakota and eastern Wyoming and Mon.tana. is probably more dependent on animal agriculture than any other region of the country. Its beautiful rangeland and beautiful country. for that matter. but it isnt suitable to grow much other than grass. We have dozens of small. rural communities in. that area that rely almost completely on the ability of ranchers to raise cattle and sheep and bison. and I consider them to be among the best livestock producers in the country.given the climate they have to contend with as well. This modest -program. again funded at $489.000 in this years bill. is a model of what we should be trying to fund in our appropriations bills. This program stretches a few dollars a.very long way. It targets its efforts on addressing specific needs. The results of the program benefit all regions of the country and its collaborative effort among four highly respected universities: South Dakota State University. North Dakota State University. the University of Wyoming and Montana State University. . By distributing grants through a competitive awards process. let me repeat. the program is competitively awarded. the consortium promotes interstate cooperation and collaboration among ranchers. farmers. scientists and educators. Research addresses subject areas that are identified &s needs by producers living. in the target region. which means results are directly applicable to those producers. and Im proud of my efforts tosecure funding for this program. Research funded by this consortium is developing new methods to add value to common grain and forage crops through the use of ruminant livestock. again cattle. sheep and bison. The projects enhance economic return and positively impact the regional environment by integrating rangeland. annual crops. and livestock resources. Like many. if not all. of my colleagues. I carefully vet the prQjects for which I request funding to ensure that the program requests that I make are effective. important. valuable projects. Im proud to put my name on this project and on the handful of other projects that Ive supported in this bill. I know my State. I make every effort to know the needs of the farmers and ranchers I represent and ensure that we are spending their tax dollars wisely on programs that get results. This is one of those programs. and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it and rejecting this amendment. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2007-08-02
Speaker: HERSETH SANDLIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I will yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from California. but let me just say. he can pointto the certification letter. but this is a consortium. There is a lead university. but its a consortium of four. With that. I yield the balance of the time to the. gentleman from California
Date: 2007-08-02
Speaker: HERSETH SANDLIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman. I too grew up on a farm. I have moved my share of cattle. We still have cattle on that farm. but its in eastern South Dakota. Its not nearly as remote as the region that we are talking about. There are different types of grasses than the grasses we are talking about. This is a consortiun. I think its very important we. fbcoknize the uniqueness of this particular area of the country.
Date: 2007-08-03
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Speaker. I think that there is common ground here in the House despite some of the comments we have just met. We all know from the press reports and Admiral McConnell himself that there is a need to make sure that we intercept communications. foreign to foreign. and I think there is 100 percent agreement in this House on that point. I would note that line 18 of the second page of the bill makes that abundantly clear. We all know -that. as technology changes. we need to continually update our laws to make sure that they work well in a changing environment. We have this bill for 120 days if we do. as we know we must. -pass it. I think of that 120 days as an assignment for the Congress. so that we understand the technology. so that we can make good decisions. This is a cell phone. If I bring this cell phone to London and call San Jose. the phone company knows Im in London and the call is made to San Jose.
Date: 2007-08-04
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 11/2 minutes. I want to thank the Speaker for speaking and endorsing and her participation in bringing this legislation together. but specifically. from our committee. the Education and Labor Committee. the matter that is dealing with green jobs. And I want to thank Congresswoman HILDA SOLIS and Congressman JOHN TIERNEY for all of the work they did to create green jobs. both in our urban areas and in the rural areas. to build the expertise. to build the capital necessary to meet the demands of this legislation. Fortoo long. we have debated this issue as if its the environment against economic growth and jobs. This legislation points to the fact. with the great support of labor unions in our country. that this is also about growing jobs here at home with new technologies. new industries. new innovation and new discovery. And I want to mention the support the Laborers International Ufiion. Operating Engineers. the Brotherhood of Carpenters. the Boilermakers. the Steelworkers. and others. They participated in this joint effort to develop these green jobs provisions. building on very successful models across this country. Again. I want to pay tribute to Congressman TIERNEY and Congresswoman SOLIS for their effort to pull together a coalition of people understanding the dynamics and the economic growth this can mean in both rural America and urban America to build the expertise. to build the talent. to build the job skills to deal with the new technologies that the other committees of jurisdiction are bringing forth. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2007-08-04
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. the energy package before us todayH.R. 3221 and H.R. 2776--includes legislation passed by eleven House committees with the goals to address global warming and Americas "energy independence." H.R. 3221 includes bills I supported in the Energy and Commerce Committee on which I serve. The Energy and Commerce Committee bills will improve the Nations energy efficiency. develop a "smart" electricity grid. improve the Department of Energys Loan Guarantee program. increase the availability of renewable fuels. and encourage the development of advanced technology vehicles and components. I do have reservations about Title VII. the Natural Resources Committee provisions. which would scale back and repeal several important provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that help encourage new domestic production of oil and natural gas. While I have reservations with these provisions. I appreciate the efforts of House Leadership for bringing together several Members of Congress that represent energyproducing Districts to review and improve the legislation. While not perfect. we reduced agency timeframes to approve or reject drilling permits and coastal energy projects. as well as removed provisions that would delay energy corridors and eliminate the royaltyinkind program. While I intend to support H.R. 3221. I will oppose the Renewable Electricity Standard. We should encourage states to produce more electricity from renewable sources. the question is whether a "onesizefitsall" Federal mandate is the best way to accomplish this goal. which could raise electricity rates for Texas consumers. I will oppose H.R. 2776a $15 billion tax package--because it includes additional provisions above those carefully negotiated in H.R. 6. the CLEAN Energy Act. While it includes important renewable energy provisions. we cannot keep taxing Americans energy industry and expect to have adequate supplies of energy. The Energy Information Administration predicts that natural gas. oil. and coal will compromise approximately the same share of our total energy supply in 2030 that they did in 2005. even with new investments in renewable sources of energy. This large increase in new taxes targeted at the U.S. energy industry could reduce our Nations energy security by discouraging new domestic oil and gas production. discouraging new investments in refinery capacity. and actually tilting the competitive playing field for global energy resources against U.S. based oil and gas companies. As we move forward in this Congress. I hope the House of Representatives will address Americas need -to produce additional domestic energy. both conventional and renewable. to ensure the reliability and affordability of our Nations critical energy supplies.
Date: 2007-08-04
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise today in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman. I am proud to come from a state that has an impressive renewable energy standard--or RESthat was developed by Texans. for Texans. and that meets the needs of our state. Unlike most state RES plans. which are based on a specific percentage of sales. the Texas RES plan has a fixed statewide renewable capacity requirement of 5.880 megawatts (MW) by 2015. which would represent about 5 percent of the states energy capacity. This isnt a question of whether or not we should encourage states to produce more electricity from renewable sourceswe should. The question is whether a onesizefitsall federal :mandate is the best way to accomplish this goal. States like ours are already encouraging the development of renewable energy resources. Because of the diversity of state RES plans. anyfederal RES mandate could undercut or preempt those efforts. Some states promote resourceslike nuclear. fuel cells. biogas. or biodieselthat are not considered an eligible resource under this amendment. I am most concerned with the impact on nly constituents electricity bills with a federal RES. I represent an underserved area where hardworking families cannot afford to face higher energy costs. In order to meet a 15 percent Federal RES by 2020. based on a 30 percent capacity factor. Texas would need 29.159 MW of intermittent renewable capacity in operation by 2020. This is a 953 percent increase over its existing wind capacity. a 767 percent increase over its existing nonhydro renewable capacity. and a 396 percent increase over the 2015 state RES requirement of 5.880 MW. Texas utilities will likely be forced to make payments to the Federal Government to meet this federal mandate. Voting against this amendment doesnt mean youre against renewable electricity generation. It only means you believe each state should decide for themselves the goals and targets that meet each states unique capabilities.
Date: 2007-08-04
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. this bill before us establishes many important incentives for consumers to make savings through the use of improvements in energy efficiency. However. I think we all understand that those incentives only work if consumers know about them and they are easily accessible. and that is what this noncontroversial amendment aims to do. It simply adds a sixth policy option for States to consider in title IX of the underlying bill. It asks States and asks utilities to partner with us to promote the use of home energy audits. to educate homeowners about the financial and environmental benefits associated with residential energy efficiency improvements. and to publicize the availability of Federal and State incentives to make residential energy efficiency improvements more affordable. In short. this amendment represents. a voluntary. commonsense way to drive consumers towards the very incentives we encourage them to use in this bill. Mr. Chairman. this comprehensive energy package represents a longoverdue course correction and a new vision for energy policy in the United States. Today. we are beginning to make good on our commitment to redirect many of the wasteful subsidies away from already highly profitable oil and gas companies towards the renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies of the future. These investments will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. They will help combat the growing problem of climate change by reducing our carbon dioxide emissions by 10.4 billion tons through the year 2030. more than the total of all tailpipe emissions from all of the cars on the road today. As we generate cleaner power. we will also generate an estimated 3 million goodpaying jobs over the next 10 years while investing in small business. economic development and highpayoff research at the Department of Energy. And its energy efficiency provisions that we hope this amendment will encourage more consumers to go toward will save consumers if they take advantage of them. a staggering $300 billion through the year 2030. demonstrating once again that the cheapest kind of energy is the kind we never have to use. Mr. Chairman. this amendment is designed to ensure that American consumers know of the new possibilities before them. Many who oppose this bill focus on what they claim America cannot do. Those of us who support this bill have great faith in the creative energy and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people and our capacity to find innovative solutions to the challenges we face.
Date: 2007-08-04
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I would be happy to yield to Mr. BOUCHER. and I want to commend him for his important work on -this bill.
Date: 2007-08-04
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I dont know how many times this Congress has to vote against this. Its been defeated twice during the appropriations process. Every analysis of the past decade has confirmed the critical need to expand and upgrade our Nations transmission infrastructure. a need thats already raising the cost of electricity to many Americans and proving a barrier to diversifying our energy resources. Now is not the time to take a step backward. I think its interesting our three colleagues from New York. if its an interstate line. it doesnt matter. but you may have problems getting it to New York. But also. New York was the last place that had a blackout simply because there was a problem in Ohio. We need to have these transmission corridors across our country. This amendment removes from federal law the grant of eminent domain authority that comes with the issuance of a construction permit by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. FERC. to a critical transmission project located in severely congested areas. The Arcuri amendment would eliminate from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 the incentive provided for states to cure gaps in their state siting laws that are especially apparent when interstate projects are needed. Nowhere else has Congress authorized FERC to grant approval for energy projectssuch as natural gas pipelineswithout also assuring the necessary federal eminent domain authority accompanies the permit. license. or certificate. Under EPAct 2005. the only projects FERC will consider are those that are critically needed and for which States could not or would not act to approve in timely manner. Yet. the ArcuriHincheyHall amendment would establish greater barriers to the success of these projects than any other energy project. The same grant of eminent domain authority that is available to all other energy projects approved by FERC should be available to these critical transmission projects. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Date: 2007-08-04
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. this bill goes far beyond what is necessary and what was agreed to by the Director of National Intelligence. All of us agree that foreigntoforeign communications need to be available for surveillance. However. this bill would grant the Attorney General the ability to wiretap anybody. anyplace. anytime. without court review. without any checks and balances. I think that this unwarranted. unprecedented measure would simply eviscerate the fourth amendment that protects the privacy not of terrorists. but of Americans. I strongly oppose this warrantless surveillance measure. I realize that in a short period of time. months. we will have an opportunity to undo the damage that is going to be done here tonight. and I pledge to America that should this measure pass. I will give it my all to make sure that we reclaim the fourth amendment in a measure that gains a vote from Members of Congress and Senators who take their oath of allegiance to the Constitution more seriously than has happened to date.
Date: 2007-08-04
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. 2V2 years ago. this body. during another congressional recess. debated and passed a bill that dealt with the right to privacy: the Terri Schiavo legislation. The Republican Congress shredded the right to privacy in the Constitution then. and many Members regretted their vote because they got home and faced their constituents that were aghast at what we had done. This bill is far worse because it treads on all Americans civil liberties and their right to privacy. It allows warrantless wiretaps with no prior court review. It allows the government to spy on Americans without suspicion of their wrongdoing. It allows the government to force telecommunication companies to conduct the eavesdropping. We need to adopt a wiretap program that protects our constitutional rights. Do we trust this administration with respecting the privacy of Americans and not casting the widest net possible? When do we say "this far and no farther"? Voting for this bill lets the terrorists win. It lets them force us to choke off our citizens rights. Americans want us. as they have repeatedly shown. to uphold the finest example of democracy and civil liberties the world has ever known. Dont let the terrorists win. Vote against this bill. Adopt a surveillance program that protects our citizens and our rights.
Date: 2007-08-04
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. rise today in strong support of this legislation. This legislation along with the passage of the Rest and Recuperation for Troops Act yesterday and the Military Construction and VA. Appropriations bill earlier this year. continues a strong record in this -Congress of providing our troops with the funding and equipment they need in the field. and ensuring they have the healthcare and rest they need when they come home. I applaud the Appropriations Committees work to provide more than the Presidents request for combat equipment depleted in Iraq. operational training. National Guard and reserves battle gear. support services for military families. and shipbuilding. This bill appropriates $459.6 billion for Defense Department programs in FY 2008. The bills total is $3.5 billion. just 1 percent less than the Presidents request. but $39.7 billion. or 9 percent more than comparable levels for last years regular defense appropriationsnot accounting for $165 billion in FY 2007 emergency supplemental defense funds or operations in Iraq and Afghanistan we sent the President eariier this year. I thank the Committee for including an important project being worked on by a consortium of universities in Texas in collaboration with the Air Force. the Consortium for Nanotechnology in Aerospace Commerce and Technology (CONTACT). Through collaborations among the universities. the Air Force Research Laboratory. and the aerospace commercial sector. this unique partnership will develop leadingedge nanotechnology aerospace applications faster and better than could be achieved individually at each institution. I hope to work with the Committee as they move to conference and in next years cycle to highlight the importance of three other projects I requested that did not get funded. The Radar/Video Fusion Vessel and Port - Security Demonstration Project will develop a sensor package integrated to provide surveillance. warning. monitoring and tracking of ships. vessels. and integrate into current and future Houston Ship Channel surveillance capability. Increased security at ports and waterways. landside and waterside. is now anessential part of homeland defense. This is particularly true in Houston where ships and barges have direct access to high value sites where destruction of assets will cause major casualties and/or economic impact. Two other projects. the Battleship TEXAS Restoration Project. and the Manganese Health Research Project. have each been funded in the past. and I hope the Chairman would work with me to see that these important projects receive the funding necessary to complete the projects in the future. Again. I strongly support this bill Which will provide essential funding for the military and our troops. and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
Date: 2007-08-04
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. Im pleased to join my colleagues Representative JAY INSLEE and Representative WALTER JONES in offering this important bipartisan amendment today. Our Federal workforce is comprised of hardworking public servants who deserve respect on the job and fairness in matters of personnel. Over the past several years. it has become increasingly clear that the Defense Departments alternative human resources regime known as the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) provides neitherand therefore should not be supported in this legislation. The NSPS was originally authorized in the FY 2004 Defense authorization bill at the request of the political leadership in the Pentagon with the understanding that the new authority would be exercised consistent with congressional intent and in consultation with the legitimate representatives of the Nations 700.000 DoD workforce. For all intents and purposes. that hasnt happened. The Pentagon has. for example. ignored Congress requirement that an independent entity arbitrate certain disputes between management and labor. And DoD has brushed aside provisions mandating the use of a merit system protection board with independent judgment. As .a consequence. the NSPS has been mired in lawsuits. and this House has now .acted twice to curtail the program: first. by passing an essentially identical limitation amendment by voice vote during consideration of last years Defense appropriations bill. and second. by effectively eliminating authority for the NSPS in this years Defense authorization legislation. If that werent enough. the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently reported that it couldnt even figure out how much money the Defense Department was actually spending on the NSPS because "DoD has not established an effective oversight mechanism to ensure that all these costs are fully captured." Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues support for this amendment.
Date: 2007-09-04
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speakers table the bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008..with a Senate amendment. thereto. disagree to the Senate amendment. and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.