macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2006-07-13
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. let me thank the authors of the bill. I rise today in strong opposition to the Gohmert amendment. You know. what is considered to be punishment for some Texans protects the legal privilege of other Texans. Another native Texan added Latina protection. The passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act has changed the face of this Nation. enabling millions of Americans the opportunity to vote. When I hear about 25 years being too long. it reminds me of how many years passed before we got the privilege. I do not think 25 years is too long. because we are in the midst of looking at a violation right now in Texas in redistricting. Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the fact that this gentleman supports the Voting Rights Act. but I do not support the 10 years. I support the 25 years. There are many who say there is no longer a need for the Voting Rights Act. Unfortunately. this is not the case. At every election minorities continue to face an uphill battle exercising their right to vote. In preparing for this reauthorization. the Judiciary Committee reviewed hundreds of examples of voter intimidation and discrimination. It is unfortunate. but this level of discrimination will not be eradicated in the next 10 years. Additionally. 10 years is not enough time to effectively review patterns of discriminatory conduct. This is not a punishment for Southern states. Its a pledge that Congress will work to ensure all Americans have the ability to vote and to have that vote counted. In addition. no state is force to comply with these provisions for another 25 years. There are ways for jurisdictions to exit both Section 5 and Section 203. The Voting Rights Act is current. necessary. and protects the rights of millions of Americans. Now is the time to reauthorize this historic cornerstone ofcivil rights for another 25 years. It is imperative to our rights. our freedom and our democracy.
Date: 2006-07-13
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the King amendment is a vote in favor of discrimination against language minorities. This point was driven home by a Federal court in Osceola County. Florida. just a few weeks ago. Osceola County was purposefully denying voter registration and assistance opportunities to Spanish language voters. including a large Puerto Rican population. The Department of Justice sued and secured a consent decree requiring the county.to comply with Federal law. In July 2002. Osceola County became covered by section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. However. the county continued to neglect its duties under Federal law. TheFederal court found just 2 weeks ago that there is considerable evidence to suggest that the countys institution and maintenance of an atlarge voting system was motivated by a desire to dilute the vote of an emerging Hispanic population. Now. we are not talking about something that happened 40 years ago. This is just a few weeks ago now. in 2006. Eliminating section 203 will encourage jurisdictions to disenfranchise emerging language minorities. which will be compounded by depriving these taxpaying U.S. citizens of the assistance they need. Really. do you think that people who speak flawless English. who cant understand balloting initiatives that are complex. if they have a hard time. then what do you think someone who has English as a second language can do? Not very much without the assistance of section 203.
Date: 2006-07-13
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to condemn Hezbollah and Hamas for the recent kidnappings and killings of Israeli soldiers. These acts of aggression have forced Israel to defend itself and its citizens and will have a damaging effect on the prospect of peace in the Middle East. If someone attacked across our borders and sent rockets into the United States and had killed or captured our own soldiers. you had better believe we would want to defend ourselves. Israel has the right to respond just like we would. Israel fully withdrew from southern Lebanon in May of 2000 and from Gaza earlier this year only to suffer hundreds of unprovoked attacks from both areas since then. This is not the first time Hezbollah has taken action against Israeli soldiers. It also kidnapped and killed three soldiers in October of 2000. These attacks are an attempt by Hezbollah to open a second front. so to speak. after the kidnappings in Gaza and their attack on Israels sovereignty. Hezbollahs actions require Israel to defend itself. and Israels actions to take out terrorist camps along its borders to prevent this from happening again are warranted and justified. Israel has to defend itself from these terrorist organizations that want to go back to pre1948 before there was Israel. They dont want Israel on the map. These countries with influence over Hezbollah must move quickly to bring the return of these soldiers. Mr. Speaker. I condemn the acts of Hezbollah and Hamas and 9sk my colleagues to do so as well.
Date: 2006-07-17
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank my colleague from Connecticut. and thank him for his leadership on this very important issue of national security. and thank my colleagues Mr. DELAHUNT and Mr. BISHOP of New York for all of their leadership. I would just like to pick up where
Date: 2006-07-17
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Well. I think that is absolutely right. You see this whole shift. overnight. in world opinion. again from the world being on our side and willing to fight alongside us in the war on terror that had been precipitated by the attacks of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Thatwas one day. After the invasion of Iraq that turned out to be based -on totally false premises. you saw the world turn against us. Some people here ask. Why does it matter whether people around the world like us or support our policies? Why does it matter if people in the Middle East have a positive view of the United States? Why does it matter if the Islamic world has a positive view of the United States? Well. here is the problem. If you dont have the support of those countries. it is very difficult to get their cooperation in the war on terror. It is very difficult for them to say we are going to help you in the United States in this battle on terror. That is one problem. The other problem is. it is a total contradiction between our efforts to promote democracy in the region. on the one hand. and to say we dont care what the people in those countries think. on the other hand. Because if we want to promote democracy. which means that we want leaders in the region to be elected by the people. then we better make sure that the people who are electing them support our goals and support our objectives. Because if the people who are electing the leaders in Middle East countries hate the United States and want to bring harm to the United States. it is very difficult for someone running for office there to say they support our efforts and support our policy. You saw the election in the Palestinian areas of Hamas and the extremists as opposed to the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority had said. we want to work with the United States. and we want to work with Israel toward a peace process. But the people. when they had a choice. for all sorts of reasons chose the more extremist Hamas. So the perceptions of the United States and our policies overseas have a direct bearing on our own security here at home. You cannot say you want to promote democracy in the Middle East. on the one hand. and say you dont care if they hate America. on the other hand. 0l 2145 If they hate America. they are going to elect leaders who reflect the will of the people. and that is bad for the United States. and yet our actions have fueled that kind of antagonism and hatred and actually made us less. not more. secure.
Date: 2006-07-17
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Would the gentleman yield? The sad part about so much of this is that so much of it was foreseeable.. if Only the President and the White House had listened to people who knew what they were talking about in this very important foreign policy area. I quoted earlier this evening the words of the President in a speech that he gave at the American Enterprise Institute on the eve of going to war in Iraq. when he talked about the fact that our invasion of Iraq would create a new era of stability in the region. It would help create a domino effect of creating new democratic movements in the region. It was sort of the big bang of creation of democratic governments in the regfon. That was what the President said. But the fact of the matter is at the same time the President gave that speech. the experts were telling him the opposite. and yet they were ignored because their advice did not fit the decision that President and some of his advisers had made. Just a month ago. Paul Pillar. who was the head of the Bureau of Near East and South Asia at the Central Intelligence Agency at the time of the invasion. testified. and here is what he told the Congress just recently. He told the Congress that what is happening was. in fact. predicted in the" national intelligence estimate of that time. Here is what he said. And on the situation. this is his testimony about a month ago. And on the situation that would be faced in postSaddam Iraq. the Intelligence Community produced. on its own initiative. its assessment of the likely challenges there. It presented a picture of a political culture that would not provide fertile ground for democracy. and foretold a long. difficult. and turbulent transition. It forecasted in a deeply divided Iraqi society there was a significant chance that sectarian and ethnic groups would engage in violent conflict unless an occupying power prevented it. It also assessed that the war and occupation would boost political Islam. increase sympathy for terrorist objectives and make Iraq a magnet for extremists from elsewhere in the Middle East. This is the assessment of the Central Intelligence Agency before we went to war in Iraq. The people who knew the region. the people who understood the consequences of an invasion were ignored by this White House. So we have to ask ourselves. where is the accountability in this system? From day one in this administration. the people who got it wrong have been rewarded. and the people who got it right have been ignored. And yet what this administration says to us is "Trust us." Just stay the course. More of the same. Well. we have had years of failed policy. No one has been held accountable. What do we expect in the years ahead and the days ahead and the months ahead from an administration that refuses to hold those who get it wrong accountable and ignores all those who get it right?
Date: 2006-07-17
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. you know it would be nice if the American people supported this administration. It would be nice if the administration had a policy that the American people could support. or that in spite of the incredible lack of support for the American people. it would be nice if the administration actually showed that that mattered to them. instead of continuing down the path of "staying the course" and doing exactly as they think is right and to heck with what anyone else in America thinks. I mean. of course we care about our place in the world. and about the vision that we are viewed through. the lens we are viewed through. But I do not understand why the administration and why this President and this Republican leadership. our colleagues. do not seem to care or understand how the American people are viewing them. I mean. there are a number of issues I know you have gone over tonight. the minimum wage is one of them. I have been witnessing the hearings that have been taking place around the country on border security and the argument over whether border security or an earned path to citizenship is more important. And what I think has been extremely humorous is that the Republicans on the other side. the Members on the other side of the aisle. in the other body. adhering to the rules. Mr. Speaker. have taken to calling the McCainHagel. I think there is another Republican that is part of that legislation. It is two or three Republicans that are heading it up. And MARTINEZ. our own Senator from Florida. But MCCAIN. and HAGEL and MARTINEZ are heading up that legislation. Yet now they seem to be calling it. or attempting to call it the ReidKennedy bill or the ReidKennedy bill. neither of whom are sponsors of that legislation. So what they are trying to do is lead the American people. and if they say it enough times so that they believe it. that it is the Democrats that are taking the initiative on this immigration policy when it is clearly Republicans.
Date: 2006-07-17
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Not only am I aware of that. Mr. DELAHUNT. thank you for leading me right into that lovely chart that we have here. that graphically depicts the differences between border security and immigration under a Democratic administration versus border security under this Republican Bush administration. .Let us peruse the numbers. The Republicans have been talking a good game about how important border security truly is to them. especially our colleagues here in the House. They have been beating that drum over and over again.
Date: 2006-07-17
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Entirely within their control to crack down on border security. to hire more Border Patrol agents. enforcement actions against employers who hire illegal immigrants illegally. So lets take a look at the numbers. We use third party validators. By the way. it is a pleasure to join you here once again. my 30 Something colleagues. I apologize for not doing that initially when I began. just jumping in. But let us look at the average number of new border patrol agents added per year under the Clinton administration from 1993 to 2000. versus the Bush administration between 2001 and 2005. Under President Clinton. 642 per year border patrol agents were added per year. And under President Bush they have added an average of 411. Now there is some real commitment to border security. How about we look at the INS. which is now CIS. But the INS fines for immigration enforcement. that is fines against employers who hired illegal immigrants illegally and have gotten caught. Okay. Under the Democratic administration in 1999. President Clinton was in office. there were 417 cases where INS fined employers for hiring. for getting caught hiring illegal immigrants. Guess how many there were in 2004. a year in which President Bush was in office?
Date: 2006-07-17
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

I would be glad to. We went from 417 immigration enforcement actions against employers under President Clinton to 3. Three under President Bush in 2004.
Date: 2006-07-17
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

If I tried to count to 417. the hour would end. and we wouldnt be able to say anything else. So I will move on to the next one. How about when we are talking about immigration fraud cases? If the Republicans are so committed to border security and making sure that we crack down on illegal immigrants and prevent the people who dont belong here and who are coming here the wrong way. then you would think that there would be many. many more cases under the Republicans than the Democrats. But in 1995. a year in which we had a Democratic President. there were 6.455 cases pursued against immigration fraud. Then you fastforward to 2003 under the Bush administration. the Republican administration. a year in which supposedly you had an entirely Republicancontrolled government. and the ability for them to actually pursue more than 6.455 cases. They pursued 1.389. a 78 percent drop.
Date: 2006-07-17
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

I did. actually. I think we also have a graphic depiction of that. But really what this comes down to. Mr. DELAHUNT. is a -clear indication of who is for immigration enforcement and border security. and who is just kidding. who is in favor of putting action behind. the words. and who just speaks the words. There is one more statistic that was more difficult to graphically depict. so I will go through this last one. which is also important. because the Bush administration has touted that in its first 5 years. it caught and returned 6 million undocumented individuals. That is actually a drop in any 5year period under the Clinton administration. So. you know. this is all just a lot of puffery. a whole lot of chestpounding. which they seem to be really. really good at. But when you scratch below the surface. just a little bit. there is no depth. there is nothing there. -And. clearly. the former House Speaker. Mr. Gingrich. the warrior. arguably the architect of the socalled Republican revolution. he has had a few things to say. as we talked about our 30something hours on this. As recently as July 14th. which was 4 days ago. this was him commenting on the broken system. in Washington. He said. Congress really has to think about how fundamentally wrong the current system is. When facing crises at home and abroad. he said. it is important to have an informed. independent legislative branch coming to grips with this reality and not sitting around and waiting for Presidential leadership. Clearly when it comes to border security and immigration. there hasnt been a whole lot of Presidential leadership. not when it comes to action. He has been real good at talking.
Date: 2006-07-17
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

So. instead of changing course and moving us in a new direftion. the Republicans want to continue to go in the direction that we are continuing. that Americans are so frustrated with. This very week they are going to focus on the politics of distraction because. as we shine a light on what is really going on. then the American people would become even more frustrated than they already are. Mr. Speaker. all of our charts in the 30 Something Working Group and the things we discussed tonight will be up on our Web site. People can log on to www.HouseDemocrats.gov/ 30Something. We encourage the Members to take a look at all the things we have got up there. and I yield back to
Date: 2006-07-17
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

talked about a new direction for America. We want to make sure that health care is more affordable for all Americans. and we also want to make sure that we have lower gas prices. helping our working families. also cutting college costs and ensuring dignity in retirement and also requiring fiscal responsibility. payaswego. With that. Mr. Speaker. we would like to thank the Democratic leadership for allowing us to have the time. and it was an honor to address the House tonight.
Date: 2006-07-18
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows: . I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. and to the Republic for which it stands. one nation under God. indivisible. with liberty and justice for all.
Date: 2006-07-18
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. we are more than halfway through the year. and the Republican donothing Congress has yet to pass any meaningful legislation that will benefit Americas middle class. For too long. President Bush and his friends here in the Congress have worked exclusively on behalf of the CEOs and the most privileged in our Nation. But Democrats believe it is time to take our Nation in a new direction. one where America works for all Americans. Thanks to the misplaced priorities of Washington Republicans. middleclass Americans are working for less today than they were when the recovery began in November 2001. While wages are stagnant. monthly bills have gone through the roof. College costs 40 percent more. Health care costs are 75 percent more. and gas prices have doubled. These dramatic increases have forced millions of hardworking Americans to take on debt. And yet Washington Republicans continue to tout this economy. They really are out of touch. I think they have been spending way too much time at the country club. It is time that the voices of all Americans are heard. and that will only happen with a Democratic Congress.
Date: 2006-07-18
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment. The Republican leadership clearly doesnt get it. Our country is grappling with skyrocketing gas prices. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. the constant threat of terrorism. concerns about pension security. and the rising cost of health care insurance. But instead of addressing- these priorities. what does the Republican leadership decide we need to focus on? Gay marriage. of course. As if passing the Federal Marriage Amendment would magically make all of our countrys biggest challenges go away. This resolution is not only a waste of time. it is completely unnecessary. The Senate has already rejected this amendment. so we know that even if the House passes this. the bill is not going anywhere. Furthermore. 45 States already ban samesex marriage. either by statute or by their State constitution. Even more important. patsage of this amendment would mark the first time that our Constitution has been amended to take rights away from people. Amending our Constitution to force States to discriminate against a targeted group of Americans would tarnish our history of protecting everybodys equal rights under the law. I therefore strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Date: 2006-07-18
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 88. I believe that the institution of marriage should consist of one man and one woman and I voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. but I cannot support this bill. The Defense of Marriage Act has never been challenged in the Supreme Court and it seems like we are putting the cart before the horse. We should allow our system of checks and balances to work as it has for over 200 years. Our founding fathers created three branches of government to work independently. but equally. In Texas. we already have a law that states that the institution of marriage is between one man and one woman. We also have a law that states that Texas does not have to recognize marriages that were performed outside of the state of Texas. Even if other states decide to change their standards for issuing marriage licenses. It will not change how marriage licenses are issued in Texas. The Defense of Marriage Act supports our state laws. Marriage is a state issue and it should remain so. When my wife and I married 36 years ago we went to our county courthouse. not our federal courthouse. We do not seek marriage licenses from the federal government.