macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2013-11-14
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2655. the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act (LARA). This deceptivelynamed bill would roll back Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by removing a judges discretion to impose sanctions against any party that files a frivolous lawsuit. The language in H.R. 2655 is based upon longdiscredited procedural requirements. previously rejected by the American Bar Association and the Judicial Conference of the United States. An overwhelming majority of the legal community reject the underlying principles behind the 1983 version of Rule 11. In fact. according to a survey conducted by the Federal Judicial Center. 87 percent of federal district judges prefer the current version of Rule 11 over the old version. Further. 91 percent of these judges oppose the requirements specifically found in H.R. 2655. Mr. Speaker. I have grave concerns about H.R. 2655 and the impact it would have on civil rights cases all across the country. History has shown us that mandatory sanctions can be used as a tool against legitimate plaintiffs in civil rights cases. Passage of H.R. 2655 would revive this abuse. and actually prolong litigationnot reduce it. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this legislation so that we can get back to working on issues that the American people truly care about.
Date: 2013-11-14
Speaker: MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: New Mexico

Mr. Speaker. on Veterans Day. I had the honor of speaking at a veterans ceremony in Albuquerque. where I was reminded of our solemn responsibility that we have as lawmakers to do everything we can do to stand up for those who stand up for us. That is why last month I introduced the Veterans Independent Living Enhancement Act. bipartisan legislation that will help disabled veterans live independently and participate in family and community life. Currently. only 2.700 veterans in the entire country can enroll in the VAs highly successful Independent Living Program each year. When you compare that to the 2.6 million veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars alone. it is clear that this number is far too low. preventing veterans from getting the services and support they need. My bill. which has both Democratic and Republican cosponsors. along with the support of a dozen different veterans and health organizations. would remove this arbitrary cap so that every veteran who can participate in it would benefit from the Independent Living Program. Mr. Speaker. I urge the House to fulfill its responsibility to our Nations veterans and their families and take up this commonsense. bipartisan legislation.
Date: 2013-11-14
Speaker: DANNY K. DAVIS (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Illinois

Mr. Speaker. Kathy Kanak can be persistent. Late last Wednesday. the 57yearold of Libertyville became one of the first known enrollees of health insurance at the glitchstricken online marketplace operated by the Federal Government for 36 States. including Illinois. "I just kept trying." she said. "Tell people to just keep trying. and they will get in eventually." With Federal tax credits. the Kanaks will pay about $260 a month in premiums less than what they paid before. They will be able to retain their family doctor and their dentist. and their annual deductible will drop to $1.500 from $5.000. Just keep trying.
Date: 2013-11-15
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. one of my colleagues this morning talked about creating jobs. and I am delighted to be one of those who saw and advocated in the Affordable Care Act the expansion of service and use on behalf of the American people. First. as a woman. let me say for women. the Affordable Care Act will take away forever this dastardly assessment that pregnancy was a preexisting disease. The lifetime caps will be removed for women. The costs are going down for women. In fact. a small business owner indicated that she was going to save $10.000 on her insurance. This creates jobs. scholarships for medical professionals. doctors. nurses. and expands the federallyqualified clinics. The Affordable Care Act is here to stay. with consumer protection that will provide for the right kind of health care for the American people. Dont be fooled. It is going to be the civil rights legislation of the 21st century: women given dignity. children provided health care. seniors not denied health care. I am delighted that this particular legislation is going to be what we desired it to be: civil rights and health care for all Americans.
Date: 2013-11-15
Speaker: CAROLYN B. MALONEY (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: New York

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership in providing health care for over 40 million Americans who did not have it. Mr. Speaker. this is the 46th time that our Republican colleagues have tried to repeal or to undermine the Affordable Care Act. I rise in opposition to this closed rule. and I urge a "no" vote on the Upton bill. We are here today supposedly to help those people who unexpectedly had their insurance policies canceled. This is a real issue as the President. himself. clearly acknowledged last night. That is why he is taking steps to help these people in the private health care market keep their plans. However. the bill before us now not only fails to solve the problem. it makes things worse by fundamentally undermining the Affordable Care Act in a way that is calculated to doom it to eventual failure. You would be changing the rules in the middle of a game and virtually guaranteeing that premiums would eventually skyrocket for people who did the right thingwho went to the exchange and got a plan. This would price the program out of existence. Doing that would take us all back to a time when over 40 million Americans did not have access to affordable health insurance. including 2.6 million New Yorkers. We must not turn our backs on those people now. We absolutely have problems we need to fix. and we have issues we need to solve. but we are on the verge of finally covering millions of Americans who lack the fundamental security of affordable health coverage for their families. We are finally close to achieving a goal for millions that has been pursued for nearly a century under Republican and Democratic administrations alike. This is a problem we must solve without turning our backs on those families forced into bankruptcy simply because someone in the household got sick. This is a problem we must solve for the sake of all of those women who were denied insurance or who had to pay up to 40 percent more for insurance simply because they were women. This is a problem we must solve for the sake of all of those people with preexisting conditions and for all of those young adults who can stay on their parents plans until they turn 27. We did not embark on this effort because we thought it would be easy. We embarked on this effort to provide health care to millions because we thought it was a moral imperative. an economic necessity. and a fundamental human right. Yes. it is hard to get it right. but ultimately this is an effort that history will judge not by the number of computer errors but by the number of lives saved. Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to vote "no" on this bill and "yes" for health care for millions of Americans.
Date: 2013-11-15
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this unnecessary legislation. The President has stepped up to the plate. admitted he made a mistake. and took steps to remedy it. This legislation rolls back too many important provisions without doing anything good beyond what the President has already done. I believe in the Affordable Care Act. This important legislation ended insurance company practices that prevented Americans from accessing quality health insurance. But. I am disappointed in how the law has been rolled out since October 1st. In fact. I think that we should extend open enrollment for an equal amount of time as the website has been down. Why are we not doing that today instead? This law is too important to fumble the roll out. I represent an area that has one of the highest uninsured rates in the country. Our district also has one of the highest rates of people who have jobs but no health insurance. Before the ACA. the individual marketplace wasnt the right solution for our constituents and after the ACA. the individual marketplace is still not the right place. The bill before us essentially restores the individual marketplace as it was prior to the ACA. It means insurance companies can refuse coverage because of preexisting conditions and it means people can lose coverage because they have gotten too sick. I agree that we should allow people who are in the individual marketplace in 2013 and want to remain in it. to do so for another year. But the bill today is yet another attempt to undo some of the best parts of this law: the minimum essential benefits and I cannot support it.
Date: 2013-11-15
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I was unavoidably detained due to official business in California today and missed roll Nos. 583 through 587. Had I been present. I would have voted "yea" on roll No. 586. I would have voted "nay" on roll Nos. 583. 584. 585. and 587.
Date: 2013-11-18
Speaker: AL GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. today. I missed the following votes: H.R. 2061Digital Accountability and Transparency (DATA) Act of 2013. Had I been present. I would have voted "yes" on this bill. H.R. 272To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense joint outpatient clinic to be constructed in Marina. California. as the "General William H. Gourley Federal Outpatient Clinic: A Joint VADOD Health Care Facility. Had I been present. I would have voted "yes" on this bill.
Date: 2013-11-18
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to recognize the devastating impact of hunger in America. The debate surrounding cuts to nutrition assistance coupled with nationwide food insecurity is a recipe for disaster for our neediest citizens. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a vital tool that help feed Americans struggling economically. More than 90 percent of SNAP beneficiaries are children. elderly. veterans. or disabled. Four to six million lowincome people will be affected by cuts to SNAP funding. including the 450.000 residents in Dallas County. that are food insecure. 300.000 of which are children. The GOPs efforts to cut $40 billion in SNAP are unconscionable and we must stand strong for the 16.4 percent of our population that remains food insecure. According to the USDA. one in every five Texas households experiences food insecurity. Out of the estimated 1.8 million Texas children. one in four live in food insecure households. Approximately 3.6 million Texas residents receive some type of federal food assistance. In my district. I chair the Dallas Coalition for Hunger Solutions which is composed of organizations dedicated to fighting hunger and making Dallas County food secure. I strongly support the federal programs that work to support the needs of our citizens nationwide. I urge my colleagues to oppose any proposed cuts to nutrition assistance. Collectively. we can do so much to confront food insecurity in our nation.
Date: 2013-11-19
Speaker: CAROLYN B. MALONEY (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: New York

Mr. Speaker. we all know about Black Friday and Cyber Monday. but I am proud to support Giving Tuesday. a national day dedicated to charitable giving and volunteerism. On December 3. Giving Tuesday will harness the collective power of charities. families. businesses. and individuals to transform how people think about. talk about. and participate in the giving season. Launched by the 92nd Street Y in New York City last year. in the district that I am privileged to represent. Giving Tuesday inspires Americans to take action to improve their local communities and strengthen our country. Thousands of partners in all 50 States are joining in this national movement of individuals and organizations that believe that everyone. whether you are a large donor or an individual volunteer. has a role in helping to solve the challenges our communities face every day. Americans are the most charitable people in the world. and Giving Tuesday is a day for us as a Nation to celebrate our spirit of generosity. I urge everyone to spread the word about Giving Tuesday to your constituents so together we can celebrate the giving season and aid the important work of charities and organizations.
Date: 2013-11-19
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman very much. Mr. Speaker. the gentleman is correct that none of the dialogue that we just heard is mutually exclusive from creating jobs. from providing a growing economy. having a sustainable environment. and maybe having even a national energy policy. This should not be a conflict between who has read and who has not in terms of land and the ability to use Federal lands and education. We can do both. And what I believe is happening is that we are trying to take sides without looking constructively at everyones amendments to make this legislation what it should be. I have always advocated for a national energy policy. Today I rise to discuss the amendments that I offered to try to bring people together. I listened to the discussion. Since the industry pays $6.500. we must let individual protesters pay $5.000. I would venture to say that the amendment that I offered would have been a fair one. It is to eliminate that amount. It could have been a compromise. make it a $1.000 fee. But in actuality. this blocks individuals from even expressing their viewpoint even though they have been able to go through the process of comment. I did get an amendment in which will help ensure that the legislation. should it become law. will not apply or be interpreted in such a way that it unfairly burdens injured parties seeking relief. My amendment No. 2 indicates that this shall not be construed to abridge the right of people to petition for the redress of grievances in violation of the first article of the amendment to the Constitution. a right to protest. Another amendment that I had was also an amendment to protect individuals. farmers. ranchers. and small businesses by removing the provision in the bill prohibiting recovery of attorney fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. That amendment was made in order to create a level playing field.
Date: 2013-11-19
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

There are a number of other amendments that I offered to H.R. 2728. One would have made it clear that the deference accorded to State law under section 44 of the bill applied only to fracking operations conducted on State lands but not to Federal lands. This was a good amendment that did not make it. A number of amendments did not. Some of my amendments did. and I want to say thank you. But I believe we can work together for a national energy policy that works for all of us. Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak on the rule governing debate on H.R. 1965. the "Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act." and H.R. 2728. the "Protecting States Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act." As the Member of Congress from Houston. the energy capital of the nation. I have always been mindful of the importance and have strongly advocated for national energy policies that will make our nation more energy independent. preserve and create jobs. and keep our nations economy strong. I am not pro- or antifracking. I strongly am "projobs" and "progrowing economy" and "prosustainable environment." Volatile energy prices threaten economic security for millions of middle class Americans and hits consumers hard. raising gas prices and straining budgets for millions of American families. It is a familiar story. but in order to restore lasting security for middle class families we need a sustained plan for American energy. not false promises of quick fixes. That is why I carefully consider each energy legislative proposal brought to the floor on its individual merits and support them when they are sound. balanced. fair. and promote the national interest. Where they fall short. I believe in working across the aisle to improve them by offering constructive amendments. That is why I offered several amendments for the Rules Committee to consider in reporting the bills covered by this rule. Three of my amendments were made in order by the Committee and for this I wish to express my appreciation to Chairman SESSIONS and Ranking Member SLAUGHTER hearing the bills before the House. Four other amendments that I offered were not made in order by the Committee. which I regret very much since I believe strongly that each would have made genuine improvements to the bills. For the benefits of all Members. I will describe these amendments briefly.
Date: 2013-11-19
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Page 9. line 9. strike the closing quotation marks and the following period. and after line 9 insert the following: "(C) RIGHT TO PETITION PRESERVED. This paragraph shall not be construed to abridge the right of the people to petition for the redress of grievances. in violation of the first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.". The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 419. the gentlewoman from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Date: 2013-11-19
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I take issue with my good friend from Washington State. This bill has a $5.000 documentation fee on the stage of protest and petition. Obviously. our good friends on the industry side dont even pay anything to nominate land. but it is a $5.000 barrier. My friend refers to the administrative process. I am a lawyer. It is under the APA code. That is different from being able to go to a higher level and to be able to comment under the Federal Register and write that "I dont like this." and then you are ruled against anyhow. Then your next level of protest is to be able to protest at the level that requires you to pay $5.000. not even $1.000. We are scoring this. and we are doing it on the backs of citizens. My amendment does make sense because what it says is that we are committed as a Congress not to block people from being able to have an equal opportunity to protest. They may not prevail. Mr. Chairman. but they should have an equal opportunity. I believe it would be senseless for Republicans and Democrats not to go on record to say that we support the opportunity for protest and petition. I am proenergy independence. projobs. progrowing the economy. profairness. prosustainable environment. and I believe that there are opportunities for us to come together. We havent listened to each other. The gentleman from New Jersey just made some very important statements. I am making a statement about the idea. I believe it is egregious to have a $5.000 fee on individualsnonprofits. farmers. ranchers. neighbors. et cetera. I will say to you. if you want to understand what it means. in my town. there is a group going to court to fight against a highrise. That highrise. Mr. Chairman. went through every processthe planning commission. the city counciland they were rejected. but they are going into a lawsuit. They happen to be a little bit more prosperous. Farmers. ranchers. and others who are having to pay $5.000 and neighbors who are having to pay $5.000. I simply think that is excessive. My colleagues. since the amendment that I had was to eliminate the $5.000. I welcome a compromise of $1.000. but I offer this simple statement that what we do today shall not be construed to abridge the right of the people to petition for the redress of grievances in violation of the first article of the amendment. and it protects the Fifth Amendment as well. which is due processthe right to protect your property. Frankly. I believe that it is extremely important because there are entities that are near Federal lands. So. with a generosity of spirit. I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2013-11-19
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I demand a recorded vote. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII. further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.
Date: 2013-11-19
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Page 15. beginning at line 4. strike section The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 419. the gentlewoman from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Date: 2013-11-19
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. let me be very clear that the awards under the EAJA are not available for any and every case. Only when the plaintiff prevails. Is that not fair? When an individual. a nonprofit. who has sought to even the playing field. who wants to make sure that we have a strong energy policy but they are praying that you listen to them as to how it is destroying their property. their house. their quality of life. they have a right to petition. So I want to correct the gentlemans interpretation. I heard on the floor of the House that he mentioned the word "frivolous." As a lawyer. and one who adheres to the Constitution. I would like to not think that if you are concerned about an issue. that you cannot get into the court of justice and that you cannot make your case. You may not win. but I want to surprise him with the fact that the large number of cases that went under this act and sued the EPA were trade associations622. private companies556. There are a variety of others. not collectively together. State territories and municipalities297. Should they not recover if they prevail? Should environmental groups not recover if they prevailonly at 388? Should individuals at 185 cases not prevail if they win? Should workers groups and universities and tribes not prevail if they should win? I think that we are wrongheaded if we simply do not adhere to the existing law. not use the terminology "frivolous" but applaud Americans who are willing to stand up for their rights. My example was correct. It was an analogy. These homeowners are fighting Big Business. but what they decided to do is. after they were ruled against by every administrative local body. they have gone into the courthouse. They happen to be more prosperous than someone else. but why would you fault an individual who is using their meager pennies with an attorney to try and prevail on something that they believe will harm them? My amendment is very simple. It just indicates. if you prevail. you should not be denied the attorney fees that anyone else would get and. if you will. debunks and rebuts the proposition that only those groups that we might not enjoy their positiontrade associations. private big companiesI ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment for fairness and justice in America. I yield back the balance of my time.