macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I want to .take this back down for a second because I think we talk about the deficit and the debt a lot. and some of the things we talk about on the floor are a little hard to wrap your mind around in terms of the things the people deal with every day. So. when we boil it down to what people deal with themselves every day. which is what a tank of gas costs. what a gallon of gas costs. this is the evolution of what has happened under the Bush administration and their energy policy. �I 2002. the summer. gas price of a g .lon bf gag4 ikas average of $1.39. Then in 2003. it went to $1.57. Then in 2004. it went to $19.0. In 2005. it went to $2.37. and you know what. in April it was $29.1. It is now over $3. I just paid $3.05 at home. and it cost me $56 to fill up my minivan. So. when we are talking about what goes on up here and how disconcerting and disappointing it is that we have no leadership on the other side and no interest or ability for them. who clearly are in charge of this country and who could make this change. at the snap of their fingers if they wanted to. they can stand and say they cannot do anything to affect oil prices. but the Presidents been in office 6 years. He had the ability to start right from the getgo and begin investing in alternative energy and trying to actually move the ball down the field when it comes to changing oil prices. but let las look at the timeline of what truly has resulted from the Bush and Republican energy plan. You have this White House energy plan that was submitted on May 16. 2001. just about 5 years ago now. and you can see as you move up that timeline that. with each phase of the plan that has been implemented. this is the increase in gas prices. There is a significant correlation between the implementation of their energy plan and the increase in the cost of a gallon of gas. May 17. 2002. the Energy Secretary announces an effort to implement their energy plan under existing law. Gas prices go higher. Go a little further down the road. and it is December 10. 2004. 75 percent of their energy plaji that was hatched in that secret meeting. which they refuse to reveal who was part of it. 75 percent of the energy plan is implemented. and now we are at almost $2 a gallon. actually a little bit more than $2 a gallon. Then you go over to March 9 of last year. 95 percent of their energy plan is implemented. and we are approaching $3 a gallon. August 8. 2005. President Bush signs the energy legislation into law. and that is when gas literally in some places hits over $3 a gallon. Now. it has fluctuated back and forth. We are at over $3 a gallon again. The chart does not lie. It is very clear that their plan raised gas prices. You have an administration infected with former closely affiliated representatives of the oil industry. all the way up to the two people who run this country. I mean. it does not take a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist to figure it out. I mean. come on.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

You want to hear the statistic I heard today. As far as boiling it down what this means for people. $56 to fill up my minivan. We have not raised the minimum wage since 1997 in this country. and at the current minimum wage. a minimum wage worker has to work 38 minutes before they can even afford 1 gallon of gas. 38 minutes. I mean. that is just over the top outrageous. I mean. it really is.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

It is the $3 a gallon in gas. It is the no vision for energy down the line. It is high tuition costs. It is health care costs spiraling out of control for how many years. That is the end result of the backroom deals that you are talking about.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

The only thing I want to add in closing is that it is just such a sorry excuse to say we cannot do anything about gas prices. I mean. their argument is you cannot snap your fingers and make adifference overnight. If they cared at all. if the President meant what he said when he said we should end Americas addiction to oil. like he said in his State of the Union address. then he would have embarked on a plan that would actually do that from the getgo. but that statement was so disingenuous and so far from what their goals are. as evidenced by their action that. you know. over the next 6 months. with election after election. whether it is a special election in California or the elections we had last night in Ohio. people will let folks know here what they think of the policies that are being established.
Date: 2006-05-04
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

and to Ms. HARMAN for working so closely with all the Members. especially Chairman DAN LUNGREN who is the prime sponsor of this legislation. I also want to mention other Members such as Chairman REICHERT and the ranking member. Mr. PASCRELL. for the important amendments that they introduced during the committee markup which have made this a very significant bill. Madam Chairman. on September 11 all of us pledged that we would do all we could to prevent another terrorist attack from occurring in this country. One of the areas where we are most vulnerable is our ports.. There are 11 million containers that come into our ports every year from foreign countries. Much progress has been made since September 11 in protecting our ports and improving the inspection process. the screening process. the scanning process. but the reality is that more has to be done. I strongly believe that the SAFE Ports Act is a major step in the direction of giving us that level of protection that we need. For instance. it provides $400 million a year in riskbased funding for a dedicated port security grant program. It mandates the deployment of radiation portal monitors which will cover 98 percent of the containers entering our country and then going out into the country. It mandates implementation of the TWIC identity cards. and it sets up port training between the employees at the ports and first responders. It also requires more cargo data to be given to improve our automated targeting system. And as far as the Container Security Initiative. CSI. it mandates that the .Secretary of Homeland Security will not allow any container to be loaded onto a ship overseas unless that container is inspected at our request. In the past. we have had a number of countries that refused to make these inspections. There have been 1.000 containers that have entered this country unexamined. uninspected because the overseas ports would not carry out the inspection. In the future. that will not be allowed to happen. Also. we require DHS to continually evaluate emerging radioactive detection and imaging technology. We also increase the number of inspectors by 1.200. All of these are part of the layered response and the layered system of defense that we needto significantly and dramatically upgrade the level of protection in our ports. This is a bill which I believe warrants the support of the entire House. It passed out of the subcommittee unanimously. and it passed out of the full committee by a vote of 290. and I will be urging its adoption today. Madam Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2006-05-04
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Chairman. I thank Mr. THOMPSON for yielding me the time. and I would like to thank Chairman KING and you and also Chairman LUNGREN for working with me and the other members of the Committee on Homeland Security to develop this SAFE Port Act. to move it through the committee. and to bring it to the floor in a very bipartisan manner. It shows that we can accomplish many things when we work together. I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 4954. the SAFE Port Act. a product of years of work on the issue of port security. and I am proud that many of the important reforms that were originally in the SECURE Coast Act that I introduced in the 108th Congress are in this legislation that we are considering today.
Date: 2006-05-04
Speaker: CORRINE BROWN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Chairman. the bill we have on the floor today is a good start to protecting our ports and waterways. but until this Congress has the fortitude to demand total cargo scanning and to dedicating real dollars to fully securing our ports. the American people remain vulnerable to a terrorist attack via our ports. This legislation should have been on the flo6r on September 12. 2001. not May 4. 2006: Like so many other security needs of this country. this is too little too late. If were not scanning cargo before it gets to this county. were closing the barn door long after the horse gets out. I hear the complaints that scanning all cargo will slow commerce. but I would ask what these people think a nuclear bomb going off in a U.S. port would do to the flow of commerce. The shipping industry would be stopped in its tracks the way the aviation industry was after To me. nowhere is additional port security funding more important than in my home state of Florida. whose 14 major ports are the gateway to the United States. These ports play a crucial role in transporting ammunitions. supplies. and military equipment to our men and women fighting all over the world. In fact. ports serve as" the main economic engine for many of the areas in which theyre found. making an attack not only extremely dangerous for local citizens. but economically disastrous for the local economy as well. Unfortunately. the administrations - concentration of terrorism prevention funding on the aviation industry has jeopardized the safety of other modes of transportation. Last year TSA spent $4.4 billion alone on Aviation security. while spending only $36 million on all Surface Transportation security programs. Even after the rail bombings in Madrid and London were still failing to provide adequate funding to protect our rail infrastructure. I just dont understand why it takes a tragedy in this county for us to react to security deficiencies. I am hopeful that the Administration and this Congress will start to provide real dollars for the protection of our port .and waterways. The citizens of this nation. deserve no less.
Date: 2006-05-04
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. we cannot overestimate the importance and vulnerability of the maritime domain. Maritime security involves hundreds of ports. thousands of miles of coastlines. tens of thousands of commercial and private craft. and millions of shipping containers. In addition. many major population centers and critical infrastructure are in close proximity to U.S. ports or accessible by waterways. In the 20th District of Florida that I represent. our ports. including Port Everglade in Ft. Lauderdale and the Port of Miami. serve as an entryway to millions of tons of cargo and people each year. It is clear that our country still needs an adequate overarching approach to the challenges of maritime security. [ 1200 That is why I am standing today in support of the Ruppersberger amendment. Security command centers are vital to the protection of our ports and to the safety of all Americans. This amendment would help make these centers more efficient. better organized. and promote better coordination �. among the various entities responsible for security. This amendment just makes sense. Why wouldnt the Secretary of Homeland Security seek input and advice from those most intimately. familiar with the specific mission and needs of a seaport? We must have a broad and comprehensive maritime security strategy. and this amendment is one step to help us get closer to that goal. I urge my colleagues to support the Ruppersberger amendment on security command centers. I am pleased that the chairman of the committee is in favor of it as well.
Date: 2006-05-04
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Chairman. I oppose the Flake amendment to eliminate the port security grant program in this bill. The third largest port in the United States. Long BeachLos Angeles. in the first year after 9/11. the Federal Government actually spent $1.8 million to help them with their security. The fact of the matter is that that local port. those two cities. put up their money to fortify. to study. to think about. and to do something about port security. The Federal Government basically was not even there. $1.8 million. Now I remind my colleagues in the House. we spend $1.5 billion a week in Iraq. We have not stood up and done the right thing and protected our critical infrastructure. That port when it is shut down. because we have seen it. is about $2 billion worth of commerce a day. It is thousands of jobs. It affects every city and every State in our Nation. We need to have moneys directly going to port security.
Date: 2006-05-04
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Chairman. my amendment is a very small and simple refinement to this piece of legislation. but I think it is a very important refinement and will dramatically strengthen the CustomsTrade Partnership Against Terrorism program. or what we call CTPAT. Currently. there are about 5.000 companies that have submitted written security plans that Customs Border Protection has reviewed and certified. This certification qualifies shippers to be fasttracked through our ports. Here is the problem: of those 5.000 companies. only 1.200 have had their plans validated. meaning that the Customs has actually gone to those sites to ensure that what the company wrote they were doing about security. measures has actually been implemented. Based on that practice. that means that there are 3.800 companies whose security measures have not been validated. looked at. et cetera: but they are receiving a lowered risk score. and this score is used to determine whether containers will be subject to additional screening or inspection. There has been a lot of talk today about not giving ourselves and the American people a false sense of security. but that is exactly what we are doing. We are letting containers into our ports with a low probability of inspection when we do not have the slightest idea that the shipper has any real security measures in place. The Sanchez amendment would stop the current practice of granting risk score reductions for nonvalidated CTPAT companies. Now. some would argue that the CTPAT members should receive a benefit for just turning in a plan and that taking away the reduced risk score for this nonvalidated member would take away their incentive to participate in the program. Well. think of it as you are driving along and you come to a toll road and everybodys backed up to pay in cash and there is the fast track. What is the incentive? You would definitely decide to purchase if you are going to do this all the time every day. to take that lane. So you would sign up for that program and put your money in the bank so you can whiz by. It is the same thing. There is an incentive. The incentive is that we get our Customs people to review your plan. and then you get to go through the fast lane. We should not let these companies have their cargo go through the fast lane when we have never even checked if they have got a fence around. if they I have done background checks on their people. if al Qaeda people are there or not. et cetera. We need to go and take a look at that. A reduction in their score is unacceptable until we have actually vi sited and validated that their security measures are actually happening. We need to trust CTPAT companies. but as Ronald Reagan always said. we must trust but we must verify. CTPAT is a security program. and security does not come from a written rubber stamp plan. So I urge my colleagues to support this. Madam Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2006-05-04
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Aside from the risk reduction score that CTPAT companies get without us verifying what they do and what they said they would do. there are a whole lot of a series of other positives they get. They do not sit in line for secondary inspections. That means they are not idling and wasting their gas. et cetera. They get a lot. but the risk reduction to the score I believe is too much. Yes. we have a layered approach. We do not have a 100 percent look at what is in those containers. So we should make sure that each layer .is done to the best of our ability. and we can do that by making this small change. As far as catching them afterwards. well. that is like telling my teenage son that if he gives me a plan about how he is going to take the drivers written test and a plan about how he is going to then after he does that take the driving test. but he does not get around to that for 2 years for the company to check. meanwhile he is on the highway driving without ever having taken a test. I 1330 It is the same thing. We havent verified what we are doing. and this terrorism issue is too important for us to ignore. I hope that my colleagues will vote for the Sanchez amendment.
Date: 2006-05-09
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Speaker. Members of the House. as Americans are paying over $3 a gallon for gasoline and have been doing so for a couple Of months. we see the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans running away from their record of supporting the oil and gas industry and trying to convince the public that they are deeply concerned and on the side of consumers. They even went so far as to insult the public by suggesting that they would increase the deficit and give them back a $100 check at the end of the summer. Fortunately. the Republican leadership in the House called the idea stupid and it seems to have waned. What the American public really wants is a comprehensive energy policy that gives them choices about their transportation. gives them choices in the heating of their homes and the cooling of their homes. gives them choices in energy conservation. That is what they are looking for. but that is not what the Republicans have delivered over the last 6 years. Why? Because 6 years ago. Vice President CHENEY sat down with the executives of the oil companies and made a decision that they would put the oil companies in charge of Americas energy policy. They would put the oil companies in charge of whether or not we would have innovation. whether or not we would have new technologies. whether or not we would have alternative energies such as solar. biofuels and all the rest of that. And the oil companies basically decided we would keep doing business on our energy policy as we have since the 1950s and 1960s. that is. we would just let the oil companies continue to drill. That meeting with Mr. CHENEY made it very. very profitable for the oil companies because since that time the Congress has done nothing but lavish tax breaks on the oil and gas industry. The policy seems to have worked because when you look at the profits. they have gone through the roof. Chevron netted $4 billion in 3 months. That is a profit of $44 million a day. But they look like a small business alongside of ExxonMobil which reported a profit of $8.4 billion. and that is after they gave the CEO of ExxonMobil a $400 million pay package. And they were still able to get a profit into the billions. I bet they loved being in that meeting with
Date: 2006-05-09
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I want to call attention to the May 15 deadline for seniors to enroll in the Medicare part D prescription drug plan. The fact is. seniors who are eligible for Medicare part D who do not sign up by May 15 will face a higher monthly premium if they enroll at a later time. This puts a lot of pressure on the seniors. I had a town hall meeting and lots of seniors came. Most of them knew nothing about how to do it or did not understand it. But. seniors. as hard as we have tried. we cannot extend this deadline beyond May 15. There are nearly 48.000 residents aged 65 and older in Dallas. Texas. Not that many came to the town hall. butquite a few. I am concerned that they are not getting the message. Missing May 15 may have expensive consequences. We would like to have a bit more compassion. Americas health is about more than just numbers on an insurance companys roll book.
Date: 2006-05-09
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to honor a man who is a living legend to golf. Byron Nelson. Throughout his career. this Native Texan has exhibited sportsmanship and a competitive drive unparalleled by most athletes. In 1945. Byron Nelson achieved 11 simultaneous winsa record that stands today. He has won the Masters twice. the U.S. Open and the PGA Championship. He was also the first winner of the Shell Houston Open in 1946. He has been named "Male Athlete of the Year" twice by the Associate Press. and led the U.S. to defeat Great Britain to win the Ryder Cup in 1965. While these accomplishments are impressive. Byron Nelson is also known as a great philanthropist. The Byron Nelson golf tournament has raised well over $88 million to provide educational and mental health services to thousands of children and their families. In addition. he has been involved as an honorary chairperson of Meals on Wheels for the Dallas Metroplex area. I believe Byron Nelson exhibits the qualities worthy of a Congressional Gold Medal. His accomplishments on the golf course are impressive. but his commitment to improving and helping his community over several decades speaks to his character. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and grant Byron Nelson the Congressional Gold Medal.