macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2005-12-14
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. SpeAker. I rise today to offer my full support for H.R. 4508. commending the Coast.Guard for its outstanding response to Hurricane Katrina. On August. 2005 we saw one of the worst natural disasters in our nations history ravage the gulf coast along Alabama. Louisiana. and Mississippi. While many of our government agencies were unprepared to deal with such a disaster. the Coast Guard responded immediately and courageously. The Coast Guard was responsible for saving over 33.000 livessix times the number of lives the Coast Guard saved in 2004after Katrina hit. coordinating pollution response with the Environmental Protection Agency. the state of Louisiana and local industries. and managing 1he megashelters in my hometown of Houston. Texas. where tens of thousands of the evacuees found relief following the storm. They have also been at the center of efforts to restore commerce to areas affected by Katrina by clearing shipping channels. replacing aids to navigation. and securing uprooted oil rigs. Coast Guard Lieutenant Joe Leonard and the units in Houston did a remarkable job in managing these shelters that received thousands of people in the days and weeks following Katrina. Many of these people were left with nothing. but these shelters provided them food. water. and a place to stay until FEMA and other government agencies could find more suitable housing. Mr. Speaker. I would again like to commend the Coast Guard for their remarkable job responding to Hurricane Katrina. and would urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R.
Date: 2005-12-14
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. In conclusion. I want to thank again Speaker HASTERT and Mr. CANTOR from Virginia for their efforts to help us bring this resolution to the floor. I also want to thank Leader PELOSI and the rest of my colleagues for their assistance. I do want to recognize Speaker HASTERT in particular. because he has committed to personally contact the . President to urge him to take this resolution and to go ahead and create the executive order. So I look forward to working with him towards that end. Madam Speaker. I have no further requests for time. and I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2005-12-15
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. every country has a right.to control its borders to regulate who en"ters. and that includes the United States of America. Several speakers have mentioned that this obligation or right has been elevated since 9/11. and I think we all acknowledge that is true. Unfortunately. the administration has completely dropped the ball when it comes to regulation of those entering the United States without authorization. I want to talk about just one item. which is the citation and release of individuals who are apprehended. who then promise to appear for their pro"deedings and then promptly disappear. The failuretoappear rate appears to be in excess of 80 percent. We have heard psychologists say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. If so. the administration has lost its mind because this citation release program has not resulted in individuals appearing as promised. Does this bill do anything about that. about the hundreds of thousands of individuals who are in America who made a promise to appear? Unfortunately. no. it does not. Now. Iam a member of the Homeland Security Committee and the House Judiciary Committee. and I have gone through this bill in some detail. There are some things that have absolutely nothing to do with unlawful immigration. Section 404 of the act is something I want to mention because it is going tobe important to a lot of Americans. This provision provides that the Secretary may deny admission to any person from countries that unreasonably delay or deny repatriation of citizens whom we have ordered deported. That is not about unlawful immigration. it is about people who are legal residents of the United States. husbands and wives of American citizens. who can be denied admission to the United States even though they are legal because the .country they were born in has done something wrong. This is the new Chinese exclusion act which we repealed.
Date: 2005-12-15
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland for his control in this debate.
Date: 2005-12-15
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I offer a motion to recommit on behalf of myself and Congressman CARDIN. The. SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Date: 2005-12-15
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considefed as read and printed in the RECORD.
Date: 2005-12-15
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. we offer this motion to recommit to address a number of issues that are not addressed in the legislation before us and to hopefully not do some of the things that the legislation before. us does. We believe that we can do these things without driving employers out of the defined benefit system. The current bill.before us provides a compilation of interest rates and premfum fees and costs that we believe will drive employers to accelerate- the termination and freezing of these plans. That is not because we say it. that is what the employers have told one another in their associations. the expectation that some 60 percent of the employers will freeze or terminate their plans. We believe that our motion to recommit does not impose arbitrary benefit cuts and frezes on workers whodo not control whether or not the employers fund the pension plans or not. The motion to recommit would require companies to seek alternatives to the termination and prove that a plan is in fact unaffordable before they. can cast it away in bankruptcy. as we saw United Airlines do. that cost the employees billions of dollars in pension benefits. Importantly. the motion to recommit would actually help the employees of American. Continental. Delta and Northwest Airlines. whose pension plans are in danger of being terminated. The bill before us does not do that. It talks about doing that in the future. The motion to recommit would also protect 9 million workers who are covered by multi-.mployer pension plans in the construction. food service and transportation industries. We would ensure that workers and executives would be affected equally in. pension plans. Again. the horrible demonstration out of United Airlines. as the executives walked away with $235 million in a new. debtfree company and the employees walked away with wage cuts and benefits cuts and the loss of retirement benefits. Finally. the motion to recommit would help workers who do not have access to defined benefit plans through the automatic enrollment in 401(k) -plans and the expanded savers credit. This legislation. if it is not corrected. is the greatest assault on the pension benefits and the retirement nest eggs of hardworking. middle class Americans in the history of this Congress. I say that because it is quite clear that this will expedite and will accelerate the freezing and the termination of these plans that so many millions of Americans are relying on. One thing this legislation will do. if you want to continue to debate Social Security. you will now prove with the passage of this legislation that Social Security is the most secure retirement system in this country. that it is the only one that people can count on. because these other plans are in jeopardy. Mr. Speaker. I yield to my colleague.
Date: 2005-12-15
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. every country has the right. even the obligation. to control its borders. and that includes the United States of America. Since 9/11. as many have mentioned. that obligation has taken on increased importance and significance. and all of us believe that we need to do a better job. The truth is that the bill before us today really does not do that better job. We all watch TV. and we see the extravagant comments made. and some of them turn out to be correct. There is something called "catch and relegse." and actually what it is. is individuals who are apprehended as they unlawfully enter the United States are cited and released with the promise that they will appear. It turns out that over 80 percent of the people who promise to appear do not show up. Now. when I was in local government. we had a failuretoappear rate in single digits. We were alarmed at that. But even though the administration has seen this rate. they have not stopped doing it. Does this bill order the administration to go out and find those people that fail to appear and bring them in for processing to be deported or Whatever the law requires? No. it does not. When I was in local government. we would have individuals who were undocumented. without papers. who committed a crime. and they would be in our jail. And every week. the Immigration Service would come. and they would take thosepeople awayfrom our jail after their sentences were served. and they would deport them. which we thought was a pretty good deal. Recently. the ball has been dropped on that score. And so we have got people who have committed crimes. who should be deported. and they are not being deported.. And sometimes they are being released from jail. Does this bill tell the administration to go out and find those people and bring them in. ready to be deported. as the law provides? No. it does not. It does not. Does it order the administration to enhance its efforts so that criminals who are in jails who are supposed to be brought in for deportation are brought in? No. it does not do. that either. It does not increase the resources. And it does some things that I think are quite weird and unfortunate. I am a member of the Homeland Security Committee as well as the Judiciary Committee. and I have mentioned section 404 in both committees. Section 404 allows for the exclusion of legal residents if they were born in the following countries: China. Vietnam. Cuba. Ethiopia. India. Eritrea or Laos. Why is that? Those countries refuse to accept or unreasonably delay the acceptance of people whom we deport. The answer is not to exclude legal residents who were born in those countries. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. and I will have further comments as the day proceeds..
Date: 2005-12-15
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman from Michiganfor yielding me time. Mr. Chairman. I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4437. Americans are right to demand better border security and better enforcement of our immigration laws. but this bill is just a false sense of security. It does not secure our borders. it leaves our ports of entry exposed. and does nothing to reform our broken immigration system. What is needed is enforcement of laws that work. and we cannot have this without comprehensive immigration - reform. Even President Bush agrees on this. We should not be debating a bill thrown together at the l1th hour before we adjourn for recess. a bill that basically opens the door for witch hunts of anyone who looks foreign and a bill that erodes basic civil liberties and human rights for migrants. legal immigrants. and even citizens. In looking at the lack of merit in this bill. we need to ask ourselves what kind of America do we want to live in. Do we want an America where we have mass deportations? Do We want. an America where police officers can randomly ask foreignlooking Americans to produce identification to prove their legal status? Do we want an America where people can be detained for life when their home colntry is unwilling to take them back? Do we want an America where American citizens will have to carry national identification cards to travel. work. or just walk down the street? Do we want an America that criminalizes 1.6 million children? Because that is exactly what this bill will do. As the daughter of immigrants. I am offended by this bill. and I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about the vote they are about to cast and the detrimental impact it will have on the proud tradition of immigration that this country was built on.
Date: 2005-12-15
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas . the chairman of the Hispanic Caucus Task Force.
Date: 2005-12-15
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 3 minutes. It is interesting that in the face of a massive failure of administration of oui border security. the Congress responds not with enhancing the remedies and its personnel so that we can enforce the law. but instead comes up with a bill to dramatically change the law. . I mentioned earlier. we have cited and released individuals who never showed up. 80 percent of the time or better. And what did the administration do? They just kept doing it. That is the definition of insanity. doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Well. changing the law is not going to change the fact that this has been a massive failure of administration. Making 11 million people without their papers aggravated felons is not going to remedy the failure of the administration at the border. The gentleman from Michigan mentioned that there was a provision that could criminalize churches. In fact. it is section 202 in the base bill. It. provides that people who assist those who do not have their papers could be guilty of a crime and. in fact. requires the seizure of property. We know that some of our churches that are helping the homeless do not ask for papers when they hand out the soup. In this bill it requires seizure of their church properties. I want to mention another provision I touched on earlier. and that is section 404 of the bill. It does not make any sense at all when we are talking about the need to secure our borders. which every country has a right and an obligation to do. to reinstate the exclusion of legal persons based on the place they were born. There is a sad part of American history. In 1882. the 47th Congress of the United States passed a bill called the Chinese Exclusion Act. and that bill haunted this country. really. into 1943. It provided that people from China could not come. In section 404. we are de facto reinstituting the Chinese Exclusion Act because we are sipying that countries that do not cooperate with us. currently the State Department tells me it is China. Vietnam. Ethiopia and Cuba. then we have the ability to exclude people who are born in those countries. Let me just give you an example. I have a lot of Vietnamese Americans in my district. Do you think the Communist government in Vietnam cares if we do not let a refugee. from their country into the United States? Do you think that the communists in China really would be concerned if a Chinese citizen was escaping from China. because they are facing a forced abortion in China? Do you think that enhancing the Communist governments of Cuba. Vietnam and China is really about securing our Nations borders? I think ncit. This bill is defective in so many ways that a wide number of groups have opposed it. The minority leader. Ms. PELOSI. will submit the list for the RECORD. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2005-12-15
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas . who had a distinguished career in the Border Patrol before being elected to Congress.
Date: 2005-12-15
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. we are fortunate in Homeland Security to have two of us who serve both on the Judiciary Committee and Homeland - Security Committee. and I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas . the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.
Date: 2005-12-15
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman. remember at the height of Katrina. that tragedy. and we heard the words. "Good job. Brownie." Well. we have someone equally qualified now in charge of the immigration function in the Homeland Security Department. and I think it is that level of competence that has led us to the problem that we face today. and that is that we have basically dropped the ball. the administration has dropped the ball at the border. They have permitted thousands. tens of thousands. of individuals to promise to. appear and then simply to escape into the country. This bill does not direct the administration to go find them and deport them or have their matter be heard. We used to. on a regular basis during the first Bush administration. the father Bush and the Clinton administration. persistently go and grab criminals after their sentences were served out in State and local incarceration facilities and deport them. The law provides for that. The ball has been dropped on that. This bill does not direct the administration to go find those folks who should have been taken in. who should have been deported. Mr. Chairman. I have had some questions about section 404 of the act that I have mentioned previously. and I want to spend a moment on that. Incredibly enough. it provides that legal individuals. permanent residents of the United States. could be precluded. barred from reentry if they leave. Let me give you an example of how it would work. Say your son falls in love with a gal who was born in Cuba. She becomes a legal permanent resident because your son is an American citizen. They go on vacation to London. They try to come back in. Your son gets in. but his wife. a legal permanent resident of the United States. is refused admission. Why? Because Cuba will not accept people who we deport. Now. do you think Fidel Castro cares whether your daughterinlaw is barred or not? I do not think so. This is a ridiculous provision. and it is punitive towards people who were born in China. in Vietnam. in Cuba and in Ethiopia. It has nothing to do with securing our borders. but it does have a lot to do with the de facto reinstatement of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and has a very pernicious. very pernicious result for those who have fled communism in Vietnam and also in Cuba. People arQ calling in wondering about this bill. They cannot believe that it is true. But let me explain how other provisions would work. The proposal is that individuals who are here without their proper documents. something none of us approve of. would become aggravated felons under this bill. If you are a 10yearold and you came in here with your parents. you do not have your papers. under this bill. you are an aggregated felon. This will not make up for the Bush administrations failure at the border.
Date: 2005-12-15
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. although I do not oppose the amendment. I would note that we will support this amendment. and I would also like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas .
Date: 2005-12-15
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of my Texas colleagues amendment. but against the bill with reservations. There are many aspects of this bill that I support. I believe we should improve security along the border. Every nation in the world should control their borders and know who is crossing their borders. That is why I cosponsored the Border Security Act last Congress with our former colleague Jim Turner. I believe we should prevent immigration officials from having to catch and release detainees because there are not enough detention beds. and holding facilities. That is why I cosponsored legislation with the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Texas that would give us the number of beds we need. However. I cannot support this bill in its current form. Under this bill. approximately 11 million people in this country would become aggravated felons. If you think we have catch and release problems now. wait until we have an additional 11 million felons that have to be detained under this legislation. There are not enough prisons to handle these numbers. I cannot imagine our country loading box cars with the estimated 10 to 12 million people who do not have documents showing they are legal. This brings visions of deportation and Nazi Germany and Stalin and the Soviet Union. Currently. 40 percent of immigration detainees are held in Department of Homeland Security facilities. 60 percent of these detainees are in local jails under contract with the Federal Government. The Federal Government needs to take responsibility for holding all of these detainees. much less the concern we have about an additional 11 million. It is estimated by making all these people felons there are approximately 3 million U.S. citizen children that would be impacted by having their parents or guardians detained or deported. This is something we need to review closely and make sure we are not making life harder for children that are U.S. citizens who happen to be born to undocumented parents. � Finally. this bill closes the door to the courthouse for many immigrants. Without judicial review. we cannot be certain that our laws are being enforced appropriately. I believe in increasing protection along our borders. realistically addressing the current undocumented population. but I also oppose a new guest worker program.