macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2006-03-01
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. if the gentlewoman would yield. I thaAk the gentlewoman for taking this time and for making the remarks that she did. I was in my office working and listening to your presentation. and not only did you lay out a cogent case why this deal with Dubai World Ports1 makes no sense at all in terms of the security interests of our country. but also the other reasons that you pointed out in terms of their role. in terms of the boycott on Israel and all the other issues of concern there. But as I left my office. you were also talking about the fact that we have a port -security system that still has an awful lot of holes in it. The number of containers. we. were told by the CIA that the most likely attack on America would be in a dirty bomb or weapon of -mass destruction inside of a container. Now. 4 years later. we still find ourselves where we are inspecting those containers once they arrive in Florida or the San Francisco Bay area in mydistrict. which is far too late. So even if you thought it would be a good idea to outsource the ownership of these ports to a foreign entity. you certainly would not do it when you have the kind of port security systepm that we have in place today with so many. so many flaws in that system. There has been a lot of suggestions about how to get this done. There are ports around the world engaging in very serious screening of these containers. but not all of the ports from which we receive cargo. So I just wanted to join the gentlewoman in her remarks. because I think there are two issues here. One..this is a real bad deal and doesnt make any sense. People in my district were stunned when the President would say one day he was going to veto it and the next day he hadnt been told about it. He was so well informed he was going to veto it. but not well informed enough to discuss it. because he hadnt seen the deal. Then. secondly. they think about the problens that we are having trying to secure this worldwide traffic in containers. and they just think that somebody has lost their mind in terms of starting at this point the outsourcing of these ports to foreign ownerships and then. of course. to a countryowned company that has a lot of questionable activities in its background with respect to terrorigm and other items. I just want to thank the gentlewoman for raising these issues. I think it is important. and it is important that they continue to be raised during this 45day period. Thank you and the other 30Somethings for doing this.
Date: 2006-03-01
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

It is a privilege to have you down here. The gentleman from California has been a leader for many years. Obviously. there are some significant national security concerns that the State of California has. We have got to make sure that we have the longterm security interests and needs of this country addressed going forward. and that this debate and dialogue not just be isolated just to this deal. This deal affects six ports in our country. six significant ports. Dubai Ports World will also own terminals and other interests at many other ports in our country. This is actually bigger than this oneport deal. This is a matter of national security. This is a matter of trying to ensure that. going forward. we fill this gaping hole in our national security. The two of you sit on the Armed Services Committee. Obviously. you are engaged every single day. Mr. MEEK serves on the Homelafid Security Committee and has intimate knowledge of the significant problems we have. Before I turn it over to one of the two of you. I think that what Mr. MILLER just said is really important to note. Actually. let me go back to what the gentleman from Georgia was saying before you all got here and before I began the 30something hour. The gentleman from Georgia made reference to how wonderful it is that we have a legislative process and a system of checks and balances and that the Congress can engage in oversight. It should be. noted that the oversight we are engaging in now. we are forcing. we are taking it upon ourselves. because it certainly hasnt been oversight supported by this administration. In fact. the President threatened last week that if we dared to pass any legislation that halted this deal. his allimportant business deal.he would veto it. Now. that doesnt really sound very democratic. It appears to me that this President cares a lot about exporting democracy and not a lot about practicing it. So I just think that is an important piece of information that our citizens in this country should understand: who is concerned about looking out for our national security interests. It doesnt appear that the administration is. I would be happy to yield to either of the gentlemen.
Date: 2006-03-01
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

When I began the hour I talked about imitation being the sincerest form of flattery so it is interesting to see that they have now engaged in a little dialogue here. This whole conversation has really been a reflection of the culture of corruption and cronyism and incompetence. Whether it is the debt that foreign countries owe. whether it is the $8 trillion deficit that we have. whether it is the pitiful and disgusting response to Hurricane Katrina or this port deal that is deeply disturbing and that brought up no national security implications for this President or this administration. Before we close it out. Mr. RYAN. Mr. MEEK. I do want to urge people to go on the Washingtonpost.com website and see the video that has just been released of President Bush being warned about the dangers of Hurricane Katrina before the hurricane hit and him not asking a single question. him.being warnedabout the levee breaks. warned about the people in the Superdome. There is video. Washingtonpost.com. - We want to thank the Democratic Leader NANCY PELOSI for the opportunity to be here and to spend time with the American people. I know Mr. RYAN will detail how people can reach us. if they have comments. on our website.
Date: 2006-03-02
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to this legislation. This is the second Congress in which this bill has been approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee without the benefit of a hearing. Committee approval of a bill with universal support is one thing. But this bill does not enjoy universal support and raises serious questions about States rights and national security. Had we been given the benefit of a hearing. we could have learned more about the National Association of Attorneys Generals opposition. We could have learned about the elements of the bill that led the Association of Food and Drug officials to conclude that this bill would "handcuff the first responders who deal with food safety issues every day." Legislation that causes this.degree of concern should not be pushed through committee and brought to the floor without the benefit of a hearing. Mr. Chairman. this bill is an affront to States rights. In each of the 50 States. State legislatures have passed food safety laws that offer residents additional food safety protections than federal law provides. This sweeping legislation would eliminate thoseState laws. It does so in two ways. First. the bill preempts all existing Statemandated food safety warnings. Second. it eliminates all State food safety laws that are not identical to federal law. In the name of food uniformity. this bill will actually disrupt State food safety enforcement activities and hinder States ability to protect residents from unsafe foods. The bill also would prevent State and local governments from warning residents about the presence of contaminants in local food. In my State of Texas. this bill would nullify laws protecting Texans from unsafe food and color additives. It would have the same effect on nearly 200 laws in each of the 50 States. Jurisdiction for food safety activities has long resided with the States. which conduct 80 percent of all food safety inspections. This bill also has serious implications to national security. The National Association of State Departments of Agriculturewhich opposes this billhas highlighted the role that the current food safety system plays in national security. saying that it "forms the first line of defense against the growing threat of a terrorist attack against our nations food supply." According to the State Agriculture Departments. the preemption provisions of this bill "would leave a critical gap in the safety net that protects consumers." I encourage my colleagues to protect consumers. stand up for States rights. and ensure the security of our Nation. Oppose this misguided bill.
Date: 2006-03-02
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Because. Mr. MEEK. what you are saying here. it is not simply a matter of fact. It goes beyond just factual accuracy that you are talking about. There is risk when it comes to this much debt being owned. this much of our debt being owned by another country. And then that doesnt even take into consideration whether the country that owns that debt. how friendly they are towards us. Let us just talk about some recent comments by some of the leaders of the nations that own our debt. The Japanese Prime Minister. obviously Japan is an ally of ours and not one that we have to do a lot of hand wringing about. but Prime Minister Hashimoto just recently. I think this was a couple of weeks ago. stated. "We hope we dont have to succumb to the temptation to sell off U.S. Treasury bills." And later that same day the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 192 points. one of the largest declines in points in history. So there is real risk to accumulating that much debt in each of these nations economically in our country and economically across the world. I have heard many of our colleagues. very flippantly on the other side of the aisle. write off the issue of debt as if it is not a big deal. Debt. in someones household individually. would be a big deal. When we talk about the deficit and deficit spending. which is obviously a separate issue. that is a very big deal. Debt is something that we should begin to move away from. Yet. instead of that. what Secretary Snow has been asking us to do is continually increase it. And what did they do recently. just during that February 16 letter when the Secretary indicated that the debt limit needed to be raised again? Because the Congress has not done that. he had to dip into the pension fund. He actually had to. because something has to give. If Congress is not raising the debt limit. then he has got to cover that debt somewhere. What I have found ironic for a very long time is that the Republicans like to throw around the L word when it comes to us and that we are taxand-. spenders. Honestly. first of all. that certainly is incorrect. But beyond that. what has been equally. if not more. irresponsible since they have been stewards of this economy is the borrowandspend philosophy that they have engaged in. because during the Clinton years there was a surplus. We were only arguing over what we were going to do with that surplus. And now we dont have the ability to talk about that. So how much we are borrowing and dipping into our reserves. so to speak. other peoples reserves. -is really inappropriate.
Date: 2006-03-02
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Thank you. because. you know. the concept of the debt and the deficit is kind of hard to get your mind around sometimes because the numbers are so big and the concepts are somewhat complex. So we always try. in our 30something hours. to translate these concepts into what it means to everyday people. So let us just talk about the interest payments on the debt that we owe to these countries that Mr. MEEK slapped up on our Nations map. What we could do with the money. just on the interest payments. just the interest payments on the debt that we pay for veterans: we could be spending about $35 billion. billion with a B. more money on services for our Nations veterans. We could be spending about $20 billion on homeland security. Billion with a B. Certainly we could dedicate all that money to port security. because we spent about $18 billion since 2001 and 9/11 on airport security. I think we could probably equal it out just with the interest payment on the debt. Let us take a look at education. We are seriously underfunding the No Child Left Behind Act and preventing children from getting themselves prepared for the path that they choose in life. And we could take just the interest payments on the debt and spend that on education. That would be about $75 billion for education. Or we could continue to spend it on the interest. which is now at $250 billion. Let us take it a little bit further and translate that even more specifically. What else could the government do with the interest that the country pays every day on this publicly held debt? We could invest $1 million a day in every single congressional district. Now. I think all 435 of us could find something good we could do to improve the quality of peoples lives with $1 million a day. We could provide health care to almost 80.000. 79.925 more veterans in this country. And we know each of us in our districts hears from our veterans about the pitiful health care services that they are receiving and the struggle that they have in just getting an appointment to get health care from the Veterans Administration. We can enroll 60.790 more children in the Head Start program. which we are going in the wrong direction in right now and enrolling fewer because we are not funding it adequately. Or we could improve thd solvency of Social Security. which this President has said is in crisis. We have differed with his definition of crisis. but even if it is half as big a problem as he says. we can improve Social .Security solvency by almost half a billion dollars. just by using the interest that this Nation pays on the national foreign debt that other countries hold. Now. if you went to a town hall meeting in each of our districts and asked our constituents. and the three of us have a diverse constituency. We represent all different kinds of folks between the three communities that we represent. Universally. they would prefer thatthat money be available to be spent on these items rather than making interest payments on debt that we owe to foreign countries.
Date: 2006-03-02
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Yesterday the amazing thing about this whole port deal that you are alluding to. in the Financial Services Committee we had an opportunity to question the representatives of the administration. Do you know that they testified that six different entities within the White House were aware of the proposal to close this Dubai Ports World deal. and the President still did not know about it. with six of his offices in the White House knowing about it? No explanation in committee for why that happened. Really. this picture says it all. We are essentially outsourcing Americas security to a foreigngovernmentowned company. We are not talking about just a foreign company. I think I can tell you that I recognize that we are not going to shut down foreign companies from owning and operating facilities in our Nations ports. We are a global economy now. But is it appropriate to allow foreign governments to have intimate knowledge about Americas security in our ports and run the terminal operations inside those ports? Overwhelmingly. I think Republicans and Democrats in Congress are saying "no." Why is the President saying "yes"? This is a person who supposedly thinks that Americas national security .hould be a priority. It has left Americans scratching their heads.
Date: 2006-03-02
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

It is indifference. Mr. RYAN. It is indifference. that there is a total disconnect between what the American people care about and understand are their needs and what this administration and this President understand.
Date: 2006-03-07
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Madam Speaker. I would like to express my strong support of H. Res. 681. supporting the .goals.and ideals of National Engineers Week. Engineers put ideas into motion. They must possess the creativity and analytical skills to innovate. Texas is our Nations energy State. Its roots are in big oil and big skies. These days. much of the wealth generated by Texas oil is being put to good use to "fuel" the technology economy. Engineers are a critical part of that effort. Our State is investing millions of dollars to develop cleanerburning alternative fuels that. are more efficient and better for the environment. Engineers. working behind the scenes. are involved at every stage. I am proud that my State is showing leadership at a time when this Nation desperately needs to invest more in research. particularly in energy research. Texass tenacity and frontier spirit is strong. and I commend engineers in Texas and all over this Nation for the wonderful work they do. Madam Speaker. I join my colleagues on the House Science Committee in support of H. Res. 681 and National Engineers Week.
Date: 2006-03-07
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

It is a pleasure to join the gentleman for our 30something Working Group hour. When I have been home in the community you and I share. I noticed. and this feeling is so palpable among the average voter. the average citizen in America. and I have been to several different cities in the last number of weeks. and to a person. regardless of party. Americana confidence in their government has been badly shaken. and badly shaken because they look to the leadership here. the Republican leadership. because we do not control a thing. They have the Presidency. the House and the Senate. So when I say that their confidence in their govern.ment and leadership is badly shaken. it is essentially the fault of the Republican leadership. It is so disturbing. I have only been in the Congress a year. I could list countless examples and share with people who have expressed their frustration and their sadness and their angst. My first year in Congress was capped by the bookends. starting 10 weeks into my service here. with the Terri Schiavo case and ending the year with the confirmation of Judge Alito. now Justice Alito. to the Supreme Court who obviously we fear will further erode the right to privacy that we began the year eroding with the Terry Schiavo case. If you look in between. sandwiched between those bookends. we have Hurricane Katrina. this port deal. we have the deficit. You have the debt. you have now the debt limit that we are struggling with. the budget reconciliation bill. the countless irresponsible budget cuts and the privatization of Social Security. the Medicare prescription drug fiasco. who the senior citizens that the gentleman and .1 represent. they are just in tears. They do not know what to do. Just in our community alone. there are 43 different plans offered by 18 different companies. It is pure insanity. So it is no wonder that our constituents and the American people are frustrated. Their confidence in their leadership is badly shaken. Our responsibility over the next several months is going to be to help restore that confidence because we have that ability. We have an agenda and the things that we would do if we were here would restore that confidence. and those are" the kinds of things that we talk about on this floor.
Date: 2006-03-07
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

I am a freshman. and I have only been here a year. and I see this chart in between us. I am wondering. is this potential increase in the debt limit unprecedented? Is it the first time it has happened? Just illuminate for me what the history of debt limit increases is. if there is one.
Date: 2006-03-07
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

he believes once the debt limit is raised. we Will be able to pay back into the" retirement system. * These letters ate coming so fast and furious. Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. we cant get them up on the big board. Here is a letter. March 6. that was just yesterday. Secretary Snow. this is alarming. he is saying. did you receive my two letters beforehand? Then he talks to the press. Wehave a problem. NASA is also located in Florida. but also in Houston. but Houston. we have a problem. He is saying to the UnitedStates Congress. we have a problem. How did we come about the problem and having to raise the debt ceiling? It is because of the policies of the Republican majority that have rubber stamped everything the President said do.
Date: 2006-03-07
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

It has just been astonishing to me. I literally have had more calls in h shorter period of time on this issue from constituents. and not the organized calls. not the calls that groups generate. that they. you know. send an email out to their members and say. call your Congresswoman. here is her phone number. This is \Joe and Jane Average Constituent who saw the news or read the newspaper or listened to the radio and called me and said. you know. what is going on here? Do these people not get it? How could they not get it? I have had little old ladies crying on the other end of the phone in my district office because the flames that have been fanned so much by this administration on the terror threat and national security. which is understandable because we really needed to raise the level of concern in America about being conscious of our own security. That is understandable. But for the President to be shocked by the American peoples reaction. that is what is so astonishing. that they are really the victims. I guess. Their decision is really the result of their own magnification of this issue. And. you know. that they have not responded with the funding that we need to enhance port security is just truly shocking.
Date: 2006-03-07
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

I am sorry. I wanted to make sure I got that out because I.think it is important. not only thirdparty validators. the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. and actions we have taken. because it does not upset me. the fact that this stuff is not being reported the way it should be reported. but Iam extremely concerned about the fact that we have the Republican majority that is not even shaken by this. Meanwhile. 50 percent of our debt. almost 50 percent of our debt is being owned by foreign interests.