macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2011-02-11
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the ranking member. and I thank the chairman as well. The gentleman from Texas and I have worked together on the immigration issue. And I would beg to differ. It is well documented that regularized individuals in certain industries would. in fact. create jobs and create investment into this country as well. But as you have one person working. that person generates the opportunity for another. In construction jobs. for example. when you are involved in construction and have the right trained person. it creates expanded jobs. But I also want to make mention that as it may have been cited. the 600 jobs lost because. allegedly. of a CBO report. I know that 500 jobs have been lost because of a merger between two major giants in the aviation industry. And. frankly. I am hopeful that we could focus on whether that is one of the diminishing aspects of mergers. that individuals do lose jobs. But I will also say to you that we have documentation here that 1.1 million private sector jobs have been created since the enactment of health care reform. I mentioned 3 million jobs in my statement. 1.1 million private sector jobs have already been created. 207.000 jobs in the health care industry have been created since the enactment of the health care reform. Under the past administration. President Bush. 673.000 private sector jobs were lost. and this was the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The claim that the health care reform law would cost 800.000 jobs. or has. is misconstrued because last years debate showed that the health care bill will save taxpayers billions of dollars and give consumers more better access to health care. In fact. private sector job growth has been strong since the enactment of health care. Again. 1.1 million jobs have been created. So we will have a constant debate about numbers. but I think there is a vigorous debate on how these jobs could be lost. The real issue is. this is the Judiciary Committee. to protect the rights of the American people. And I have cited. and the ranking member has cited. and Mr. COHEN has cited ways that we can be constructive to create jobs in America. to protect the consumer. and to ensure that competition is fair and healthy. And I would. Madam Speaker. simply ask my colleagues to engage in that kind of work as opposed to work that will take up the time of this body and delay us from doing the peoples work and providing justice for all.
Date: 2011-02-11
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to H. Res. 72. Its been five weeks since the House Republican leadership convened the 112th Congress. But weve yet to see any legislation brought to the floor to spur job creation. as they promised. None. And just yesterday Republicans voted against allowing a jobs billthe Build America Bonds to Create Jobs Now Actto even come to the floor for a vote. Instead of focusing on jobs. they are spending ten hours this week talking about how Congress should perform oversight duties. Forgive me if I point out that this is one of the main responsibilities of Congress. Dont waste ten hours talking about it. just do it. And if a House Committee does anything right now. Im sure our constituents would appreciate sending them an American jobcreating bill. Our economy is showing clear signs of recovery. but it is fragile and there is still much more work to do. There are too many Americans out of work and even more struggling to make ends meet. We should be building on the economic recovery efforts of the last two years. not backtracking. But that s just what s happening. Budget Committee Chairman PAUL RYAN is dictating spending caps for fiscal year 2011. which will cut the same types of discretionary spending that was such a critical component in the Recovery Actmaking Chairman RYANS plan a veritable "antiRecovery Act." Democrats in Congress have committed to measuring every effort by whether it creates jobs. strengthens the middle class. and reduces the deficit. Well so far. the Republican leadership gets a ZERO for the 112th Congress. I say to my Republican friends. lets stop wasting time and lets get to work! Oh. and if you are serious about weighing the benefits of Federal regulations. I recommend my colleagues read the Bush Administrations 2008 report to Congress on the subject. That report found the annual benefits of Federal regulations to the American public outweighed the costs by as much as 14 to 1. So perhaps we should be reading that report on the floor instead of this colossal waste of time.
Date: 2011-02-14
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of H.R. 514. a limited bill to extend three Patriot Act counterterrorism authorities scheduled to expire at the end of this month through December of this year. I do so to ensure our intelligence and law enforcement communities continue to have the tools they need to protect American citizens while Congress works to reform this currently flawed law. The authorities being extended in todays legislation include Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Act. also known as the "lone wolf" amendment. which allows surveillance of noncitizens engaged in international terrorism apart from identified terrorist groups. Section 206 of Patriot Act. which permits roving surveillance of terrorism suspects who use multiple communication devices to thwart detection. and Section 215 of the Patriot Act. which compels production of business records and other tangible items upon the approval of the FISA court. Of these three authorities. the current construction of the Section 215 "tangible items" authority is the most problematic. Specifically. the "relevance" standard that must be met under this authority is too weak. Recipients of Section 215 orders are required to wait a year before challenging a nondisclosure order. And the government can use secret evidence to oppose judicial challenges to a Section 215 order. I believe Section 215 and other Patriot Act authorities should be reformed along the lines of Senator PATRICK LEAHYs USA Patriot Act Sunset Extension Act. Additionally. the Justice Department and Congress must exercise more oversight over the application of these authorities to ensure that they are being exercised responsibly. It is critically important that. in our effort to defend the liberties that Americans cherish. we not enact measures that erode the very freedoms we seek to protect.
Date: 2011-02-14
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. Ive come to the House this evening to talk about the deficit. but its not our budgetary deficit. which is also a concern to many of us. but. rather. the deficit of vision that I see reflected in the CR that we will be voting on later this week. By that. I mean we have a CR before us this week that will do grave damage to our economic competitiveness while having a negligible impact on the Nations budgetary situation. It is clear that without a robust. innovative economy. it will be next to impossible to ever truly reduce our national budgetary deficit. Yet this CR cuts some of the very investments that are needed to address the crisis in competitiveness in our country that we are confronting now. For some time. important leaders in our business and academic community have warned us about this crisis. In 2005. the National Academies panel. chaired by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine. released a report. "Rising Above the Gathering Storm." This report warned that without a focused effort by the Federal Government. the future of American competitiveness was bleak. It recommended increased efforts in science. technology. engineering. and math. and we have failed to see this vision. The reason for these investments is simple: technological innovation leads to jobs. Several studies have estimated that over 50 percent of Americas economic growth since World War II is a direct result of technological innovation. Some studies have suggested that this percentage is much higher still. This technological innovation coincided with an increased Federal investment in research. development and STEM education.
Date: 2011-02-14
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

As I was traveling. Mr. Speaker. to Washington. I had the opportunity to read the local newspaper. Its a good time for us to reconnect with our community. those that we have not been able to see. to hear their stories. And I was impacted by a story of two students at the University of Texas from different walks of life who had had a passion for football in one instance and a passion for basketball in another instance. Unfortunately. as they were aspiring to their dreams. both of them found that they had a congenital or a serious heart defect. Young men. One who had come out of the heart of Acres Home. a historically African American community. raised by his grandmother whom he loved. and he chose to stay close to home by going to UT Austin to play basketball. What a devastating blow to find out he could not play when he first got there. What about the young man. huge in size. that almost lost his life on the football field? But the story is. in this month when we commemorate African American History Month. one was a Caucasian. and one was an African American. It just shows in this Nation how we can work together and come together. These young men have. in a sense. overcome their challenges. and they represent Americas heroes. I pay tribute to these two athletes at the University of Texas and thank them for their leadership.
Date: 2011-02-15
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Madam Chair. I move to strike the requisite number of words. The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Date: 2011-02-15
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia changed her vote from "aye" to Messrs. CLEAVER. RICHMOND. and DEUTCH changed their vote from "no" to "aye." So the amendment was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Date: 2011-02-15
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

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: Amendment to Strike Section 1332 of Title III. which reduces the funding level for the Department of Justice. Community Oriented Policing Services to $290.500.000.
Date: 2011-02-15
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the gentleman. and I thank the ranking member and. of course. the manager for the majority. Mr. Chairman. I rise for a very important discussion as a member of the House Judiciary Committee and someone who truly believes that the COPS Program that has been initiated over a long tenure of time has truly brought down the crime statistics across America. Whether you are a rural hamlet or whether or not you happen to be a major city. the COPS Program has been an anchor for security for neighborhoods who cannot afford to pay for their own private police services. This amendment restores the $600 million that is offered to be taken from the present funding. and it restores or would prevent the taking of 1.330 cops off the street. and as well it will provide the safety net that is necessary. If I had had command of the floor earlier. I would have also added to this discussion the elimination of salaries that are eliminating the use of resources for the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and the resources necessary to enforce the Voting Rights Act in the new redistricting plans that will be coming forward. But it is certainly a shame to take in the middle of municipal budget years a sizable amount of dollars which they had been operating with and depended on. There are local communities in which the COPS Program provides one police officer. two police officers. 20 police officers. 30 police officers. and that is the very existence of that community. In cities around America. cops have been laid off. and that should be a decision of last resort. When you talk about going forward. my question to my friends on the other side of the aisle is. is the purpose of this legislative initiative job creation. or job elimination? How can you do such damage to members of the municipal workforce that are on the front lines serving local communities?
Date: 2011-02-15
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. as I indicated before. first of all. the gentleman was mishearing what I said. I indicated that I had an earlier amendment that I decided not to offer because I intend to work with the other body on it. But it would have diminished the ability to enforce the Voting Rights Act. That is not what were speaking of today. The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman needs to address the point of order.
Date: 2011-02-15
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I wanted to clarify that I was not speaking on this amendment. In this amendment Ive simply asked for a waiver. Frankly. this is too important an issue to be addressed by the gentlemans point of order. I ask for a waiver. This is denying. if you will. huge amounts of money to many municipalities all across this Nation. And $600 million is absolutely ludicrous. It causes a loss of jobs and a loss of safety for the United States. I ask for a waiver on the point of order. The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
Date: 2011-02-15
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Date: 2011-02-15
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. I had intended to offer an amendment similar to the gentleman from Tennessees that strikes the elimination of $75 million. Rather than do that. I am going to join in support of the gentleman from Tennessees amendment. Mine was striking the full $75 million that was being taken from the Legal Services Corporation. Earlier today I was on the floor explaining what a continuing resolution is. because I know more than my colleagues are listening. What would actually happen if this cut was to go through is. frankly. that the services to the poor. meaning cases who are now in court. cases that are proceeding. would be suspended in air. Frankly. you would deny justice to those who have begun to get some relief. This cut will impact 136 nonprofit Legal Services offices. It will frankly cut 300 Legal Aid attorneys. 136 offices across America. This $75 million will stop Mr. and Mrs. Jones in the middle of representation to save their home. This cut will stop Mrs. Smith from being able to get relief from a domestic violence situation. because her lawyer. or that familys lawyer. will be fired. This cut will stop someone who has been defrauded. Some senior citizen who paid a contractor to fix their leaking roof in midstream will lose their lawyer. This is a denial of justice. Having had the privilege today of visiting the construction site of the Martin Luther King Memorial. it was interesting that I read these words: "Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere." And for us to cut the very framework of the Constitution that calls for justice. I believe. is something that should halt us on the very floor of this House and we should immediately accept the amendment without the point of order and allow these individuals to have the ability to be served. Frankly. this is beyond the imagination of any of us. The board chairman. John G. Levi. of the Legal Services board said. "Justice is a hollow promise without the Legal Services Corporation." He is absolutely right. And as I indicated. I. too. wanted to strike the elimination of $75 million from the Legal Services Corporation. but the greater insult is the fact that work that is proceeding as we speak would be eliminated: 300 lawyers. 136 nonprofit offices and how many hundreds upon hundreds and maybe thousands of clients who would not have the opportunity to be served. So I would ask my colleagues to consider what we do here in this place and to consider what a continuing resolution will do midstream similar to the point I made earlier about resources that could be taken from the section of the Department of Justice that would enforce the Voting Rights Act. It means that you would stop cases dealing with the enforcement of the right to vote. Let us not deny justice tonight. I would ask my colleagues to support the adding back of the $70 million to the Legal Services Corporation.
Date: 2011-02-15
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I respect the chairman and I know that he has. as the gentleman from New York said. has his own commitment. I consider this an emergency and would only make the point that whether or not a point of order could be waived. in light of the fact that cases that are now in litigation would be in essence left without representation either for the client or for the case. I consider it a legal emergency. an emergency dealing with justice questions. and I would ask that the point of order be waived. The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from Virginia makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee violates section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5. Section 3(j)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill. The Chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate from the chair of the Committee on the Budget that the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore. the point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
Date: 2011-02-15
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Virginia has opposed this. but I just wonder whether or not theres any shame when it comes to literally gutting the Legal Services Corporation some $324 million and practically eliminating any opportunity for justice. I just want to repeat some of the words that were offered: slush fund for special interests. lobbying. and political activities. We spent some time in the 1990s on the Judiciary Committee looking closely at the Legal Services Corporation and. frankly. gave generous oversight on some of the issues that might have suggested that there were other activities going on. When the Legal Services Corporation nonprofits come from around the Nation. you are seeing members of the bar who are from major law firms. major leaders in the community who are on the boards of these particular services. local offices. and they have the highest standard of legal excellence that they try to portray and therefore try to encourage as relates to the representation of poor people. My brotherinlaw. to his death. was a legal services lawyer in New York. Not one time did I see him or hear of him doing anything other than attempting to do justice for people who could not achieve such. I. frankly. believe when you talk about a continuing resolution. make it very clear: it is stopping programs in the middle of operation. It is closing 136 offices in midstream. It is laying off 300 lawyers in the middle of litigation that they are pursuing to keep Mrs. Jones in her home and to keep an elderly person whos been defrauded by an unscrupulous contractor simply trying to fix an old home. She has no other options sometimes than a legal services lawyer. So I hope that we will see less of this. Might I just say its interesting that we have a difference of opinion. Frankly. I dont think the President has walked away from any Financial Commission report. The majority in this House has every opportunity to present their cuts to entitlement and to begin the discussion. The President has not indicated he is not interested. But while we recognize that this House is a revenue -generating House and. therefore. with the responsibility now in the hands of Republicans. it is appropriate for the chairman of the Budget Committee and others to present their proposal for such. The Presidents budget cuts the debt. The Presidents budget has strength in going forward. but it has a purpose: competitiveness. morality. and. of course. to rebuild America. Im waiting on the Republicans to present their proposal. and Im sure that we will look closely and be able to work in a bipartisan manner. But I would vigorously oppose any cuts of this measure at all to the Legal Services Corporation. which is a mark for justice in this country. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina .
Date: 2011-02-16
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.
Date: 2011-02-16
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Date: 2011-02-16
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chair. 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 301. at the end of line 16. strike "$4.015" and insert "$4.860."
Date: 2011-02-16
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I respect the gentleman. but there were individuals who wanted to debate on the amendment of Ms. CHU. and I think we are allowed to do that except that the gentleman rose on his point of order and started speaking to it before we could strike the last word. Will others be allowed to debate before the gentleman pursues his point of order? The Acting CHAIR. The Members may offer pro forma amendments. But when an amendment is offered. there is no requirement that any point of order be reserved rather than pressed.
Date: 2011-02-16
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

So. if Members are on their feet. you would be kind enough to recognize them before the gentleman from Montana pursues a point of order. which he has already reserved? The Acting CHAIR. A pro forma amendment may not be offered while a point of order is pending.
Date: 2011-02-16
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I tried to craft my discussion in the form of an emergency. The loss of thousands upon thousands of students access to education. I consider that an emergency. The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman will suspend. Will the gentlewoman speak to the point of order.
Date: 2011-02-16
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I will. I consider this an emergency. and I would ask that this point of order be waived in order to provide for the thousands of students. Mr. Chairman. that are now going to stop school because of the $1.000. $800 they will lose. Im asking the gentleman for a waiver so that this is based on an emergency and the fact there was no offset available that would not impact negatively other vital programs to make America equal. Id ask for a waiver and Id ask for this amendment to be accepted and the point of order to be waived. The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from Montana makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas violates section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5. Section 3(j)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill. The Chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate from the chair of the Committee on the Budget that the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore. the point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.