macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2015-10-06
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee. I rise to speak on H.R. 3102. the "Airport Access Control Security Improvement Act of 2015." which amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to reform programs of the Transportation Security Administration. and streamline transportation security regulations. The objective of the bill is to establish a riskbased. intelligencedriven model for the screening of employees at airports based on level of access and employment positions at domestic airports. The model is intended to ensure that only those individuals authorized to have access to secure areas of a domestic airport are permitted such access. The model must be able to differentiate between individuals authorized to have access to an entire secure area and those who are not permitted access. The Director of the FBI and Director of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee are directed to review the disqualifying criminal offenses in the Code of Federal Regulations to determine the adequacy for an individual to have continued access to Secure Identification Display Areas of airports. The review based on the current language of the bill would consider whether the list of disqualifying offenses should be amended to include other offenses. As House Judiciary Committees Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Crime. Terrorism and Investigation. I am concerned that the bill contains this language. At a time when we are discussing the rights of nonviolent offenders to have an opportunity. if their conduct and records dictate to be able to fully reintegration into society. that there may be other efforts to make this process more difficult without a serious review of why such measures should be taken and for whom should they be applied? I would offer to work with my fellow members on the House Committee on Homeland Security to consider carefully the reasons for any expansion on this list. especially if the expansion only involves the Department of Homeland Security. There are similar concerns regarding language in the bill that may extend the period of time that may be considered between a particular situation and the life a person is currently leading. Considering behavior of a teenager when considering the conduct of a 35 yearold adult. the weight of the consideration should be on the life of the adult and the seriousness of the offense. Any new model that may be developed that would impact the employability of current persons who hold access credentials and future employees should be further reviewed by the full committee prior to becoming policy. The bills goals are importantthe House should consider every aspect of airport security to improve aviation safety. I will continue to work in my capacity on both the House Committee on Homeland Security and the House Committee on the Judiciary to improve aviation security.
Date: 2015-10-06
Speaker: LUJAN GRISHAM (democrat)
Chamber: H

for introducing and championing the House version of the act and to Chairman BISHOP and Ranking Member GRIJALVA for moving it swiftly through committee. I would also like to thank my colleague. the gentleman from Washington. for joining me tonight in managing this bill. Just as Mr. NEWHOUSE stated. this legislation is supported by the entire New Mexico delegation. I urge its quick adoption. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2015-10-06
Speaker: MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: New Mexico

Mr. Speaker. I thank Representative SABLAN and Representative NEWHOUSE for their support. I also thank Chairman BISHOP and Ranking Member GRIJALVA for their help in bringing this legislation to the floor. Of course. I extend my gratitude to our Senator TOM UDALL for working with me on this important piece of legislation. I am the proud sponsor of the House companion to the Albuquerque Indian School Land Transfer Act. which. as you have heard. directs the Secretary of the Interior to take into trust four tracts of land for the New Mexico 19 Pueblos. The land taken into the trust would be used for educational. health. cultural. business. and economic development of the New Mexico Pueblos. The four parcels are located within a former Federal Indian boarding school site called the 1884 Albuquerque Indian School Reserve in Albuquerque. New Mexico. In 1969. the United States started the long process of converting the Reserve into land under the jurisdiction and control of the New Mexico Pueblos. Since then. Congress has enacted legislation in 1978. 2001. and 2008 to convey additional land from the Reserve in trust for the New Mexico Pueblos. Pursuant to the 2008 legislation. the Bureau of Land Management conducted a new survey of the former school properties and identified minor discrepancies in the previous trust deeds and. also. identified the correct boundaries of two additional tracts of land within the Reserve that the Bureau of Indian Affairs no longer needed for its administrative functions. This legislation addresses those technical discrepancies identified by BLMs survey. and it would complete the process of transferring BIAs portion of the Reserve to New Mexicos Pueblos. This transfer allows the Pueblos to expand their current economic development plan for the region. which creates jobs. expands educational and cultural opportunities. while continuing to generate revenue for the New Mexico Pueblos. I urge my colleagues to support this noncontroversial legislation. which. as you have heard. has the support of the entire New Mexico delegation and would benefit the New Mexico 19 Pueblos.
Date: 2015-10-06
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. this is a very difficult time for Americans as we mourn with our fellow citizens in Oregon. I offer my deepest sympathy to the congressional delegation here in the Congress. as we join them in their expression of deep sympathy to those who were injured and those who lost their lives. to the families of those individuals. I spoke to a member of the United States military. and he indicated that in battle he had two guns. We understand that the perpetrator of this horrible act had at least 14 guns. or doubledigit guns. I have heard the refrain: "What else will have to happen before we address the question of gun regulation and gun safety?" Mr. Speaker. it is time now to ask the question of an extended waiting period so that someone would not amass 14. 15. 30 guns. more than the United States military. and a serious background check dealing with any issues that would impact a persons stability in having guns. Yes. people do kill. not guns. but they use guns to kill. I have been through too many of these. Mr. Speaker. from Columbine to this incident. Every single one I have been through since being in the United States Congress. It is time for the Congress to act.
Date: 2015-10-07
Speaker: CAROLYN B. MALONEY (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: New York

Mr. Speaker. when the American Public Health Association totaled the cost of gun violence in the United States for 1 year. it amounted to $174 billion. about $363 for every American. And if you consider just the loss of life. more Americans have been killed by guns since 1968 than have died in all the wars this country has ever fought. Now. once more. in the wake of another mass shooting. too many leaders have responded with indifference. Just move on. But when 32 Americans are killed with a gun every single day. we cannot afford to stand still. We cannot just move on. So far in this Congress. the House has held not one single hearing on gun violence. not one chance to evaluate ways to curb this epidemic of gun violence. Mr. Speaker. we cannot go on like this. Not one more American should die because Congress has failed to act.
Date: 2015-10-07
Speaker: MAXINE WATERS (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

While I also support the provisions of H.R. 3192 that are consistent with the CFPBs action to date. my support ends when the vital consumer protections. like the private right of action afforded to consumers under the Truth in Lending Act. are weakened or. worse. completely eliminated. Under current law. consumers that feel that a lender provided an inaccurate or misleading mortgage disclosure can file suit under the Truth in Lending Act. and lenders are forced to prove that the disclosures they provided were consistent with the act. The burden of proof is properly placed with the lenders. as they have the resources to prove their good faith intent. and consumers often have limited information at the time they file suit. H.R. 3192. however. would shield the lenders from liability if an error was committed in good faith even if a consumer relied on this information to their detriment. The act or the effect of the good faith provision is that it requires that consumers prove from the onset of an action filed against a lender that an error was not made in good faith. a burden of proof that a borrower simply lacks the means to make. As a result. the good faith requirement in H.R. 3192 operates as yet another hurdle for consumers and is a harmful departure from current law. So I offered the amendment. And the gentleman from Massachusetts is correct. Why couldnt we have a debate on it? It is a very simple amendment. This would help provide clarity to the marketplace while also protecting consumers. The amendment would simply restore a consumers existing rights under TILA to bring an action during the temporary safe harbor period established by H.R. 3192 even if the action was filed in response to an error made by a lender in good faith. Let me just say. whose side are you on? Are you on the side of consumers who expect you to protect them? We have gone through a crisis in this country. We had a subprime meltdown. We discovered that consumers had been tricked. People buying homes had been misled. We discovered that they had loans that. well. they didnt even understand. We dont want to go back there. We want to protect consumers. and we have a right to do that. This amendment would have helped clarify that. You did not afford us that.
Date: 2015-10-07
Speaker: MAXINE WATERS (democrat)
Chamber: H

from California. Mr. Speaker and Members. we have to keep saying over and over again that this is not about the grace period. They keep arguing that somehow they favor a grace period. and we do not. We have made it clear that is not what the debate is about. We support a grace period. Not only that. Mr. Cordray at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau supports a grace period. That is not the argument here. The argument is what you dont want to talk about. my amendment that I attempted. You came to this floor with a closed rule to keep us from talking about an amendment that would protect the consumers. My amendment would allow that consumers have a right to have their day in court. When you talk about good faith and the way that this bill is written. of course. In my opinion. when a consumer in this grace period takes a look at the documents and if it is simply a comma. as one has indicated. well. that could be a mistake in good faith. and the lender will be okay. But when the interest rates change. when there are more fees than were anticipated. when the cost of that mortgage goes up and the consumer says. "Hey. this is not what I really intended. This is not what I agreed to." and the lender says. "Sorry. that is it. That is what you signed up for." then the consumer has a right to go to court. And even though you would place the responsibility on the consumer to have to prove that the lender did not act in good faith. different from what the law is now. that consumer should have the right to go to court and make his or her case. That is what this amendment is all about. and you know it. It is not about bringing your props in trying to say this is the bill. That is not the bill. You have all of the comments and everything else that is associated with the bill. So lets get some truth out here and have people understand what the amendment is and not just props showing that you have thousands of pages of a bill.
Date: 2015-10-07
Speaker: CAROLYN B. MALONEY (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: New York

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. and for her leadership as ranking member on the Financial Services Committee. I rise in opposition to H.R. 3192. The Democrats have worked very hard to protect consumers and. in fact. in DoddFrank. created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. which has already returned $11 billion to 25 million consumers in just the first 4 years of its existence. Their goal is to protect consumers. and that is what they have done in the new rule that they came out with. Democrats believe that consumers deserve easytounderstand disclosures of the cost of buying and financing a home. So. in response to the mortgage crisis. the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed to streamline and combine the disclosures that consumers get when they are buying a home so it is easier for them to understand. They used to get multiple disclosure forms. some under the Truth in Lending Act and some under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. or RESPA. Now the CFPB has streamlined them into a new Integrated Disclosure. which is important because it will make it far easier for Americans to understand the loan terms and the fees that they are paying when they buy a home. But implementing a brandnew Integrated Disclosure form will also be complicated. and it will take the industry some time to adjust to the new rules. And industry raised those concerns to us. This bill would give lenders a safe harbor from the CFPBs Integrated Disclosure rule until February 21. 2016. While I think that this bill addresses an important issue because implementing the new Integrated Disclosure forms will be complex. the truth is that the CFPB has already given the industry significant relief on the rule. They have already done it. Along with my colleague and very good friend from Kentucky. Mr. BARR. we led a bipartisan letter which was signed by 254 Members of this body. including Ranking Member WATERS. requesting a grace period on the Integrated Disclosure requirement. I include for the RECORD the letter that the gentleman from Kentucky and I circulated with all 254 signatures. as well as the letter we received in response.
Date: 2015-10-07
Speaker: CAROLYN B. MALONEY (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: New York

Within 2 weeks. we received a letter back from the CFPB. promising that they would do a grace period. I thank Director Cordray for responding so quickly to the gentleman from Kentuckys concerns and my concerns. The grace period that the Bureau did for the qualified mortgage rule. which they gave earlier. was very successful. and I have no doubt that the grace period for the Integrated Disclosure rule will be just as successful. In fact. the Integrated Disclosure rule took effect last Saturday. which means that the grace period that Director Cordray promisedwhich this bill would codifyis already in effect. The grace period is happening right now. and that is why this bill is just absolutely not necessary. It is also important to note that the bill would prohibit consumers from suing for improper disclosure during the grace period. Now. that is of deep concern to me because that takes a right away from consumers. I certainly did not come to Congress to vote in any way to limit or roll back consumer protections. So this was something that I am incredibly uncomfortable with because I dont think it is a good idea to suspend both public enforcement and private enforcement through lawsuits at the same time. I dont think that is good policy because it takes away all the guardrails for consumers during this grace period. This is also something that the White House strongly opposes. In fact. they have issued a veto threat on this bill because they feel so strongly about maintaining consumers private right to sue. And I will place into the RECORD a statement from President Obamas White House. stating that he is opposed to rolling back any rights of consumers.
Date: 2015-10-07
Speaker: CAROLYN B. MALONEY (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: New York

So while I am very sympathetic to the concerns that motivated this bill. I have to oppose the bill because I believe it is unnecessary. They say the purpose is to codify it. Mr. Cordray responded to Congress request. They responded to industrys request. and they granted the grace period. We have it. So this bill does nothing but roll back consumer protections. I would urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. I applaud my colleagues that signed the letter that led to the relief we have today.
Date: 2015-10-07
Speaker: MAXINE WATERS (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York . the ranking member of the Small Business Committee.
Date: 2015-10-07
Speaker: MAXINE WATERS (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker and Members. my friends on the opposite side of the aisle keep making the argument about the grace period. That should not even be discussed here because we have agreed. Mr. Cordray from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has agreed and everybody has agreed. that there should have been a grace period. That is not what my amendment was about that they would not allow me to take up on the floor. Mr. Speaker. my amendment is about consumer protection. They know it. and they are trying to keep people misled by coming in here with their props and saying that this bill is 1.800 pages when. in fact. it is not. So I want everybody to be clear that this is not about the grace period. and this is not about not giving the industry an opportunity to get its act together. Really. the debate should be about whether or not they protect consumers. and they dont. Mr. Speaker. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California .
Date: 2015-10-07
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the ranking member for bringing those troubling revelations to the attention of the House. It shows what a sham process this has been from the beginning. Mr. Speaker. we have got a lot of work to do in this Congress. We have got to come together with a budget agreement to keep the government open. to invest in our economy. to deal with modernizing our transportation infrastructure in this country. Yet. what are Republicans bringing to the floor? Another measure to create another socalled select committee to investigate Planned Parenthood. when. as we have heard today. three other House committees have already done that. And what has been the sum total of that investigation? Well. the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee told us on national television when he was asked if Planned Parenthood had broken any laws. "No. Im not suggesting they broke the law." So when you dont get the answer you want. what do you do? Create another special committee. Rather than creating a special committee. the Government and Oversight Committee owes an apology to Cecile Richards. the president of Planned Parenthood. for dragging her through a committee process that was disrespectful. where the chairman of the committee began with a chart that PolitiFact determined was a pantsonfire misrepresentation. That is the most untrue ranking you can get from PolitiFact. Pants on Fire. That was the gist of that hearing. And now we are learning today possible nondisclosure of certain documents. So what is happening here? As the late Yogi Berra would say. "This is deja vu all over again." They had many committees investigating Benghazi to try to get to the bottom of a tragedy in the House and the Senate. and all those committees concluded there was no wrongdoing. And so what did our Republican colleague do? Spent $5 million on a special committee on Benghazi. which. the Majority Leader just announced the other day on national television. was simply about politics. simply about hurting Secretary Clinton. So that is what this is all about.
Date: 2015-10-07
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I want to thank the ranking member. So that is what this all boils down to. When committees in the House and the Senate investigated Benghaziand not just any committeesthe Defense Committee. the Intelligence Committees in the House and the Senatethey all concluded that the allegations were false. that it was a terrible. awful tragedy in Benghazi. but nobody was involved in any wrongdoing. When they didnt get the answer they wanted then. Special Committee on Benghazi. which. as we heard. turned out to be all about politics. And that is exactly what is happening now with Planned Parenthood.
Date: 2015-10-07
Speaker: CAROLYN B. MALONEY (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: New York

I thank my friend for yielding and for her great leadership. Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 461. to create a select committee on investigating Planned Parenthood. I take very seriously the congressional responsibility to investigate wrongdoing and improve transparency. but this panel is not at all about due diligence. It is about purely partisan politics. an attempt to "Benghazi" Planned Parenthood. [- 1645 Mr. Speaker. six States have investigated Planned Parenthood and found nothing. Four committee hearings have found nothing. Planned Parenthood has handed over tens of thousands of pages of documents to Congress. and there has not even been a whiff of wrongdoing. Even the chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has said he has no evidence of anything unlawful. This panel would be a waste of Congress time and taxpayers money. I urge my colleagues to vote "no" and stop this relentless crusade attacking access to health care for women who desperately need it and cannot afford it.
Date: 2015-10-07
Speaker: JUDY CHU (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. here we are again with Republicans attacking women and Planned Parenthood on the House floor. But now the attacks are taking the form of yet another politically inspired committee. As with the Benghazi committee. Republicans are not seeking out truth or better policy. Instead. they want to use taxpayerfunded resources for a political witch hunt. Here are the facts: Abortion today is protected by our Constitution. and we have found no wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood so far in the three House investigations that are already taking place. Another fact: Planned Parenthood helps women. Every year Planned Parenthood provides 2.1 million patients with family counseling and contraception. They are trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies from occurring in the first place. something that my Republican colleagues should support. Lets not use lies and edited tapes to unfairly color and bring down this organization. We should be better than that. Mr. Speaker. I oppose this committee. I urge my colleagues to vote "no...
Date: 2015-10-07
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. this marks the 65th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean war. As Korea has transformed itself in six decades from a wartorn basket economy into the 13th largest economy in the world. it represents one of Americas greatest foreign policy success stories in the postWorld War II era. The Republic of Korea has been a strong and steadfast economic and strategic partner of the United States. Both countries are not only bound by history together. but by their shared commitment to democratic values. Back home. California has an incredibly vibrant Korean American community that contributes to all facets of our society. from thriving businesses to our local churches. Next week. the President of the Republic of Korea. the Honorable Park Geunhye. will be making her second visit to Washington. D.C. I hope we will take this opportunity to discuss the rising tensions on the Korean Peninsula. the continued threat North Koreas nuclear program imposes on the region. and the regional concerns regarding the East Sea dispute.