macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2007-10-09
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I rise to pay tribute to my friend and colleague. Jo ANN DAVIS. who has served this body with dignity and honor and dedication since her election in 2000. I first met Jo ANN when she was running for the House of Delegates in 1997 and quickly became impressed with her strong work ethic. Her congressional district. like mine. is the home of many current and retired Federal employees. So when I became chairman of the House Government Reform Committee. it was an easy decision to ask her to oversee the Civil Service Subcommittee. She took on the responsibilities of subcommittee Chair with great diligence and energy. Through her efforts. we made important strides in helping the Federal Government recruit and retain quality employees. With her help. we improved Federal student loan repayment programs and -expanded dental and vision benefits. Jo ANN was a strong supporter of legislation allowing retired Federal employees to deduct health care premiums from pretax dollars. moving this important legislation through her subcommittee. She was also a reliable ally in the annual fight for pay parity for civilian Federal employees. Her district borders mine. we both represeftt portions of Prince William County. We have worked closely on a number of local issues. With her passing. Northern Virginia and the Commonwealth have lost a strong advocate. I salute Jo ANN DAVIS for her courageous fight against cancer. Her passing reminds us all that we need to fight this horrible affliction. My heartfelt condolences go out to her husband. Chuck and to her sons. Christopher and Charles. I hope they find solace in knowing she did so much to represent the people of Virginia.
Date: 2007-10-09
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I thank my friend for yielding. One of the great privileges in the daily honor of being able to serve in the Congress of the United States is the privilege of being able to meet extraordinary people on a constant basis here in these Halls. I rise. today. Mr. Speaker. to remember and pay tribute to a dear friend who was one of those truly extraordinary people. whom I have had the privilege of meeting in my 15 years here in these Halls of Congress. Jo ANN DAVIS. We will always remember her not only as the gracious and dignified and wonderful lady that she was. but as the effective representative for her constituents and the great American patriot. who every day gave her all to defend our Nation and to honor and protect. to the best of her ability. those who protect us and our freedom. our men and women in uniform. I am deeply comforted. Mr. Speaker. by the fact that Jo ANN DAVIS had such a profound faith in God. It was her strength. At this time. it is especially comforting to know that she is now with the Lord. I enjoyed my conversations with Jo ANN. the fellowship. her sense of humor. She was a wonderful. wonderful human being. How her eyes would light up. Mr. Speaker. when the subject of her granddaughter would be brought up. Charlotte. I had the privilege of getting to know her son. Charlie. very well. He was a member of my staff. an extraordinary young man. who did his job day in and day out. Each day he worked in our office in a marvelous manner with total devotion to this Congress. to the people of the United States. I am deeply grateful for his service. I extend to him. my friend. Charlie. and his family. obviously his wife. his daughter. Charlotte. his brother. Jo ANNS other son. Chris. and of course. Chuck. Jo ANNS husband. my deepest sympathy and condolences at this time. We will never forget her. that wonderful. wonderful colleague. that wonderful friend. that wonderful lady who not only graced these Halls but served her constituents of the First District of Virginia so effectively. so well. and indeed served all of America so well. As I say. I will never forget her and consider it a great privilege to have been able to meet and to be a friend of Congresswoman Jo ANN DAVIS.
Date: 2007-10-09
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to honor a friend and a colleague. Jo ANN DAVIS from the great State of Virginia. When I was first elected in 2002. came to this body in 2003. Jo ANN was one of the first people to approach me and say. what can I do to help you. can I help you look for staff. what can I do. Jo ANN was always known for being a very willing. helpful person. She never offered advice. but if you asked her for advice. you better be prepared for frankness. and she would strongly suggest that you follow that advice. Shed say you asked for it. And she was always very frank and very candid when she gave advice but always very gentle. always a lady. I would have to say that Jo ANN DAVIS epitomized the Golden Rule. She followed the Golden Rule. She was. a fighter and she was a woman who. although diminutive in size. demonstrated great. great strength. whether it was fighting cancer. that she beat back once. and then we all know it came back a second time to take her from us. but she was always a fighter and always with a smile on her face. It can safely be said that Jo ANN loved God. and her country. as well as her beloved family. We will miss Jo ANN DAVIS because of what she brought to this body. because of her spirit. because of her ever. everwinning smile. Jo ANN DAVIS had the honor of being respected by people on both sides of the aisle. They respected her. and they knew that she worked very hard to represent her district in Virginia. We extend our sympathies to her husband. Chuck. her sons. Charlie aid Chris. as well as her granddaughter. Charlotte.
Date: 2007-10-09
Speaker: S ESSIONS (republican)
Chamber: H

The gentleman. as he makes the point about how important it is that we have a marketbased. free enterprise system health care. is so true. If you look at America and leukemia versus Europe. Americas survival rate is 50 percent. Europes is 35 percent. Prostate cancer. Americas survival rate is 81.2 percent. France. 61.7. England. 44.3 percent. My gosh. it just tells you that what America has is not only the greatest health care system in the world. and one that is of envy. but one that produces results. And of course it is more expensive. and of course it costs money. but if the free enterprise system would support this because we dont tax the ability that people have * to buy their health care. which is what the Democrat party mandate is. that youve got to tax people that dont belong in a corporation. then what it means is that youve got a bunch of people that cant afford it. So thats another point that -comes back to your tax element about health care. You should not have to pay aftertax money on health care. It should all be pretax. but the Democrats insist that. if you dont work for a corporation. you should not get this opportunity because its not something that you negotiated with with a labor contract.
Date: 2007-10-10
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. this year National Save for Retirement Week is going to take place October 21st through the 27th. National Save for Retirement Week is the first congressionally endorsed. formal event publicly urging employers to promote the benefits of saving for retirement. and encourage their employees to take full advantage of employersponsored retirement and savings plans. Hopefully this week will make employees more aware of how critical it is to save now for their financial future and learn how to take advantage of free money when saving for retirement by contributing enough to the retirement plan to receive the company match. To learn more about National Save for . Retirement Week. visit choosetosave.org. I urge -yOu to take charge of your retirement now.
Date: 2007-10-16
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Madam Speaker. it is my privilege at this time to yield 3 minutes to a great leader in this House. our colleague from Florida .
Date: 2007-10-16
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Madam Speaker. it is my privilege to yield 8 minutes to someone who has been working long and hard on this important issue and deserves much commendation. my dear friend. Mr. PENCE of Indiana.
Date: 2007-10-16
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I will be asking for a "no" vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule. Under the current rule. so long as the chairman of the Committee of Jurisdiction includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or report or a statement that there are no earmarks. no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress. However. under the rule as it functioned under the Republican majority in the 109th Congress. even if the point of order was not available on the bill. it was always available on the rule as a question of consideration. But because the new Rules Committee majority specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order. they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks on the rule or on the bill. I would like to direct all Members to a letter that House Parliamentarian JOHN SULLIVAN recently sent to the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee. Ms. SLAUGHTER. which confirms what we have been saying since January. that the Democratic earmark rule contains loopholes. In his letter to the distinguished chairman. the Parliamentarian states that the Democratic earmark rule "does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process." I will insert this letter from the House Parliamentarian. JOHN SULLIVAN. into the RECORD.
Date: 2007-10-16
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I would be happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana. the former chairman of the committee .
Date: 2007-10-16
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. let me just. say that I appreciate what the chairman of the committee has done in holding the hearings and the investigations. I think this is something the American people should know. There is no question about that. But there are particular concerns that go to the particular content of the resolution. The chairman and I have discussed this. Mr. Speaker. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California .
Date: 2007-10-16
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Just to put it in perspective. the report was. I think. something like 60 pages. It was called back for five sentences. Mr. Speaker. I yield 21/2 minutes to the gentleman from California . the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee. now the ranking member.
Date: 2007-10-16
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Let me say that who speaks for the State Department at certain times and how nuanced the statement is going to be is veryimportant in diplomatic jargon in terms of what its meaning is. I think that was one of the difficulties they had at that time.
Date: 2007-10-16
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. let me start by saying. Look. I think the State Department when this draft was leaked made a mistake in trying to reclassify this and put the genie back in the bottle. They should have just said this is unofficial. this has some problems. and gone ahead. I think that would have made it a lot easier for everybody. Secondly. lets get real. For the State Department to make official pronunciations about another government and particular ministries can have its diplomatic challenges. and I respect the right of the administration in some of these instances to refrain from saying what the majority would like them to say. Having said that. I think the State Department. when they go tell The Washington Post- things that they wouldnt tell this committee. gives me some problems and puts me on the side of voting for this resolution rather than defending the State Department. I want to thank the chairman for his oversight hearings on corruption in Iraq. I think it is entirely appropriate. I think he is certainly within his bounds in the right to get the information from the Department of State. and I hope in the future they will be more cooperative in terms of turning over information to the committee instead of just turning it over to the newspapers with their own slant. That is not the way this works. We have a separation of powers. We are a separate branch of government. the legislative branch. and we want to be part of these discussions. Now. this resolution could have been about a strong bipartisan consensus calling attention to the corruption in Iraq and urging the State Department to step up its efforts to ferret out official corruption. but it is not. The resolution is just the latest. as I said before. it is the latest find in a search for proxy antiwar votes that the leadership on the other side has staged to feed an increasingly restive left wing of their party. Unable to prevail directly. they ignore regular order. they nibble around the edges with symbolic surrogates and sense of Congress resolutions. Having said that. I am going to vote for this resolution. It is not the resolution I would have put forward. We would like to have had more input. I hope as we move down the road on a number of war issues. we can work across the aisle to try to bring some consensus and real change regarding what is going on in Iraq. instead of putting up a document such as this. drafted by one party. But I urge support for the resolution. I thank the chairman for his oversight hearings. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2007-10-16
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. reclaiming my time. I have referred to that section. that first section where they say you dont need it if it is foreigntoforeign as the "furtive fig leaf section of the bill. which appears to give Admiral McConnell what heneeds. but because of the actual practicality of it. denies him the opportunity to do it. because essentially that was sort of the state of the law prior to the time we passed the law in August. and he told us it doesnt work.
Date: 2007-10-16
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. If the gentlewoman would allow me to reclaim my time for a moment. evidently some on the other side of the aisle have listened to a little bit of our complaint here. so in the managers amendment they have included what they consider to be the saving piece of that first section. which says if the electronic surveillance referred to in paragraph 1 inadvertently collects a communication in which at least one party to the communication is located inside the U.S. or is a United States person. the contents of such communication shall be handled in accordance with minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney General. If that is all they did. that would be fine with me. But they then go on to say this. that require that no contents of any communication to which the United States person is a party shall be disclosed. disseminated or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 7 days. unless you get a court order or unless the Attorney General . determines specifically in this case that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person. Now. Admiral McConnell has suggested to us that time frame. they say you cant keep it longer than 7 days. may not be practical within the contours of how we actually get that information. number one. and. secondly. you cant use that information. You cant give it to anybody. You cant disclose it to the FBI. even though the information doesnt make the person in the United States a target. the information contained in that conversation is all about Osama -bin Laden calling into the United States and something he says that is important for our purposes. That is the extraordinary thing here. because it says no contents of any communication to which the United States person is a party shall be disclosed. disseminated or used. It is exactly contrary to what Admiral McConnell said. which is the law should be directed at the identity of the individual we are targeting. So in this case. because you now capture a conversation that has taken place with the foreign person in a foreign land into the United States. even though it doesnt give rise to anything that would make a target of that person in the United States. you cant use any of that conversation with respect to the target for which you dont need a warrant. even though that person could be Osama bin Laden or one of his top people. That is nuts. With all due respect. I use the word "nuts." but I think that is probably proper.
Date: 2007-10-16
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H

of California. Unless they go to court and get an order. which requires all of the necessary preparation that Admiral McConnell has told us we cannot do.
Date: 2007-10-16
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I would like to pose this question to the gentlelady. The gentlelady has studied this issue for a long time and was one of the first people to raise certain points of considered alarm. try-. ing to bring a sense of urgency to this House to respond to the .freat that is out there. There is another troubling aspect of the bill to be brought to the floor. It has a sunset of December 31. 2009. So that would suggest to anybody looking from the outside that there is an end game or an end date at which the threat no longer exists. Can the gentlelady give us any advice. considered opinion. as to whether or not this threat is long lasting? Or should we limit this law just to the next 2 years?
Date: 2007-10-16
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Today I presented two amendments before the Rules Committee for consideration on this floor. Both were denied. One would have expanded the definition of foreign intelligence individuals or states to include nonstate actors who are involved in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The reason I did that is al Qaeda is not a state. There aye free actors out there who would attempt to work with nation states or with organizations such as al Qaeda. and technically under the definition currently in the FISA law. they are not covered so that we couldnt do these sorts of things you talk about. listening in on their conversations without warrants. even though they may be as much a threat as a small nation state somewhere. But yet we dont even have an opportunity to discuss that on the floor of the House because that amendment and every other amendment was denied.
Date: 2007-10-16
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Let us return to the protections of Americans. In the criminal justice system for years and years and years. somewhere between 30 and 50 years. we have done minimization. which means that if you have a wiretap ona Mafia member. and as I say. he calls his sainted mother or his priest. and the conversation has nothing to do with Mafia activities. that is minimized. That is. it is taken out of the data field and thrown away. essentially. If he says something in that conversation. while not implicating the other person in the conversation that is of benefit to our investigation. that is. he comments he is going to be going to Nashville and thats an important piece of information for us to know. we can use that. If the receiver of the conversation or communication. by what he or she says. indicates activity of an illegal nature such that that person becomes a target. it is at that point we require a warrant for that person. Similarly. the way the law that we passed in August works is once you have the legal nonwarrant wiretap. or whatever you want to call it. catch of or capture of the communication because the target is a foreigner in a foreign country and you have reason to believe they are involved in some way that is covered under the law. that conversation or communication to someone within the United States is treated in the very same way. If the conversation has nothing to do with terror. it is minimized. It is thrown out. If the conversation contained some information about the legal target that is of benefit. we can use that information against that target. If in fact the response or the statement made by the person in the United States. the American. is of a nature that gives us cause to believe that person is involved in terror. we then go get a warrant because that person becomes a target. Is that the gentlelAdys understanding of how we operate?
Date: 2007-10-16
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I know we only have about 5 minutes left. This is testimony that Admiral McConnell gave before the Judiciary Committee. He was asked this directly by a Member from the other side of the aisle: How many Americans have been wire tapped without a court order? The direct response by the DNI. none. He went on to say there are no wiretaps against Americans without a court order. None. What we are doing is we target a foreign person in a foreign country. If that foreign person calls in the United States. we have to do something with the call. The process is called minimization. It was the law in 1978. It is the way it is handled. Is that your understanding?
Date: 2007-10-16
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. We should recall the words of the United States Supreme Court in the Keith case which is the case that dealt with wiretaps in the United States. They said that while there was no warrant exception in domestic surveillance cases. it was not addressing the question of activities related to foreign powers and their agents. And in that unanimous opinion. the court noted that were the government to fail "to preserve the security of its people. society itself could become so disordered that all rights and liberties would be endangered." Justice White. a John Kennedy appointment to the Court who personified the definition of a moderate. said this in his concurring opinion in the Katz v. U.S. case: "We should not require the warrant procedure in a magistrates judgment if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer. the Attorney General. has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable." In other words. the court when it dealt with this issue those years ago recognized the difference between a criminal justice system and a system of intelligence and counterterrorism to protect our country from attack by those who would basically destroy everything. including our Constitution and our constitutional foundation.
Date: 2007-10-16
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. The gentlelady is exactly correct. and let me suggest. to get down to basics. that when surveillance is directed overseas. legitimate concerns relating to purely domestic surveillance are not implicated. We should all be concerned about the protections of civil liberties. as the 9/11 Commission put it. The choice between security and liberty is a false choice as nothing is more likely to endanger Americas liberties than the success of a terrorist attack at home. And I thank the gentlelady for her comments.