macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma . one of the cosponsors of this amendment.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. I was in this body for 10 years and then out for 16. I have had a chance to look at the importance of travel as it adds to the information base that Members have. While we have had problems in certain areas of travel. we ought not to just throw them all out. This is a real effort to try and get transparency and to work on a bipartisan basis to make sure this works.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I ask Members to support this worthy amendment. and I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I thank my dear friend. Mr. SESSIONS. for the time. I rise today in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation. Chairman PETER KING has worked in an extraordinary fashion to create a piece of legislation with the help of his ranking member. Mr. THOMPSON. and the entire committee. that is worthy of .our support. They are the first ones to admit it is not perfect. but it certainly moves us forward in an important way toward further port security. For example. in the community that I am honored to represent. Mr. Speaker. the Port of Miami. that port alone. of course. is one of the largest in the country and in the world. and its an-. nual operating security costs have increased from $4 million in 2001 to $16 million in the last. year. This legislation. for example. authorizes $400million annually to be awarded to highrisk ports. such as the Port of Miami. in grants. It will be used precisely for purchasing and upgrading security equipment and enhancing terrorism preparedness. There are amendments. We made 10 Democrat amendments in order and five Republican amendments in order. It is a fair rule. It is a fair rule that we bring forth today. For example. the Bass amendment would allow State and local agencies to apply for reimbursement for operational expenses and overhead costs. such as. for example. waterborne patrols. Those are functions that used to be carried out and paid for by the Coast Guard. Now the ports have to pay for them. So it is taken care of by that amendment. So it is a fair rule. bringing forth a very important piece of legislation. making in order twice as many Democrat amendments as Republican amendments. Nevertheless. it is still a good rule. I support the rule. I strongly support the underlying legislation and would ask all of our colleagues to. support both the rule and the underlying legislation.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker. first of all. I would like to say that this is an attempt to have a balanced bill. I have worked as hard as I can with the gentlewoman from California and with the ranking member on my subcommittee.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 4954. the SAFE Port Act. For too long we have been content with minimal upgrades to port security while vigorously bolstering our airports and borders. Do not get me wrong. These areas of security are vital. but so are our ports. As a Member from Florida. I am extremely conscious of the Nations vulnerability in this area. Florida has 14 ports. all of which are in desperate need of the grant funding that this bill provides for infrastructure. technology and security upgrades.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. I wonder how many people in this country have stocks in gas companies. ExxonMobil. for example. You are making a profit. too. Stop and think about it.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Well. I didnt understand her. You claim you want to tax away the profits of oil companies. and yet they do not even come here with their tired old windfalls profit tax because they know it is a bogus policy that doesnt pass the laugh test. Instead. they come here convoluting tax items that sound intriguing in a 15second sound bite. The first of the items is to switch the way that oil companies account for their inventory. They claim to pick up on a Senate idea to move away from longstanding accounting rules for inventory.. Well. what this motion would propose to do is go back in time to the 1930s to theoretical inventories still held by oil companies. We know darn well there is no oil inventories held by oil companies since the 1930s. yet the Democrats here propose that we go back that far to tax theoretical invehtory. propose a onetime retroactive tax back to the 1930s. Such a proposal is scary even for my friends on the other side of the aisle. They did not use some economic policy that was. developed by a PhD. No. they simply decided how many billions of dollars they wanted to raise in taxes on oil companies. and with some simple division -it came out to $18.75 for each
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last week. my colleague from Washington State submitted for the RECORDan article describing a draft economist paper that claims to find no positive effects from the 2003 dividend and capital gains tax. cut. There is solid evidence to the contrary. _ I would like to submit a column from Business Week magazine written by Robert Barro. an economist at Harvard University and nominee for the Nobel Prize in Economics. He sums up a paper published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics by saying the 2003 tax cuts enhanced incentives for work effort. saving and investment. The paper shows that tax policy can have substantial and rapid effects on economic behavior. I submit for the RECORD a list of seven academic papers that offer support that a dividend tax cut of 2003 had a positive effect on capital markets and the economy. These papers were written by a diverse group of prominent academic economists from such institutions as the University of California at Berkeley.. the University of Michigan. the University of Illinois and the Federal Reserve Board. and they directly contradict the papers submitted by my colleagues across the aisle. that the dividend tax cut had ho effect. In fact. according to the IRS. dividend income by taxpayers went up 22 percent in the year after the tax cut. and qualified dividend income went up 30 percent. � [From Business Week. Jan. 24. 2005] HOW TAx REFORM DRIvEs GRowTH AND
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. You can talk about price gouging all day. but it costs money to get oil out of the ground and get it delivered. and we have an excellent delivery system. And that oil doesnt come from just this country. because some of. my friends over there have blocked us -from drilling for oil or gas in the major parts of our country. I think that another provision that our Democrat friends propose in their effort to repeal the law of supply and demand by reducing foreign tax credits. they are proposing to increase the capital cost of American oil companies when drilling in other countries. And they think this will somehow reduce the cost of oil. Well. if you are scratching your head and wondering how increasing capital costs will then somehow be able to reduce the cost of a final product. join me in voting against this motion. This motion simply doesnt make sense. The Democrat proposal to take away foreign tax credits when American oil companies are drilling in far off places like Africa. South America or Central Europe. the last time I looked. that is where a lot of oil is. Yet the part of the Democrat motion on the foreign tax credit does increase the cost of drilling in those countries. Perhaps our Democrat friends would rather have China National Offshore Oil Company or Venezuelan companies winning these drilling contracts rather than American companies. I can assure you that the president of China National Offshore Oil Company and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela really dont care about the cost of a gallon of gasoline in suburban America. To handicap American oil companies when drilling offshore would be to disadvantage American oil companies in these global drilling contracts and will ultimately harm Americans at the pump. Again. Mr. Speaker. our friends on the other side of the aisle are aiming to repeal the law of supply and demand. Just like they cant repeal the laws of physics and have pigs fly. they cant repeal the law of supply and demand in the oil market. We should defeat this motion to instruct conferees. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2006-05-04
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of the bill before us. the SAFE Port Act. As a Member from Florida. I am extremely conscious of our Nations vulnerability in the area of port security. As a former New Yorker. I still am concerned about the ports there. I have several friends who worked for at that time just Customs. who had always expressed a concern about the security at the ports. -
Date: 2006-05-04
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I rise in reluctant opposition because of some lack of clarity on this amendment. and perhaps I can be relieved of my concern. The gentlewoman. in her comments. suggested that the World Shipping Council and the Pacific Maritime Association were in support of this amendment. And yet I have a letter with a contrary conclusion. not based on the fact that they object to the objective of the gentlewomans amendment but rather some concern that the gentlewomans amendment would be too restrictive in bringing us to the point of having the best technology available as soon as possible. As I understand the gentlewomans amendment. it changes the definition of Container Security Device from "a mechanical or electronic device designed to. at a minimum. detect unauthorized intrusions of containers" to. "a mechanical or electronic device designed to. at a minimum. positively identify containers and detect and record unauthorized intrusion of containers". and then goes on to say. such devices shall have false alarm rates that have been demonstrated to be below 1 percent. In the letter that we received from the Coalition for Secure Ports. they were concerned that the 1 percent false alarm rate may be unacceptable. in that we have between 11 and 12 million containers coming into the United States per year. If you had this device on all of them. a 1 percent false alarm rate would create as many as 120.000 false security alarms in U.S. ports. My concern is whether we are straitjacketing the Secretary into accepting a device. if. in fact. it reached that 1 percent false alarm rate. or whether it would be at least 1 percent false alarm rate that is the intention of the author. Secondly. the question is whether or not the gentlewomans language requiring this to be a. "device that positively identifies containers." whether that would restrict this to RFID. or Radio Frequency Identification. systems and not allow. for instance. optical character recognition or similar systems. I . If that is the gentlewomans intent and if that is. in fact. the impact of this amendment. I wouldhave to oppose it. because it seems to me it would restrict us to one particular type of device. And I dont have the technology background to understand whether that one device is the silver bullet in this area. I understand that one manufacturer. GE. uses it. They think it works well. But. as I understand. there are other manufacturers that are trying to work in other areas.So those are the concerns I have. And with that. I would reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2006-05-04
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I would just say that. with that understanding that they do not have those limitations of which I have concern. I would not object to this amendment. But I want to make it clear that the record reflect. number one. that if the Secretary believes we have to have a standard that is more precise than a 1 percent false alarm rate. that he have the discretion to do that.
Date: 2006-05-04
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. And. secondly. that we are not limiting this to RFID systems or similar systems to RFID. that other systems of technology could also meet the gentlewomans amendment.
Date: 2006-05-04
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to obtain the time in opposition even though I do not oppose this amendment.
Date: 2006-05-04
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I would like to congratulate the gentlewoman from Southern California for working with us to modify the language of her original amendment so it achieves the purpose to which she intends and is not objectionable in any way. There is no doubt that we want to make sure that we have layers of security. starting at the foreign ports. through the period of time in which the containers are shipped. to just outside our ports. in our ports. and then as the containers leave our ports. One of the things we have to do in this entire effort is to insert a notion of uncertainty in the minds of wouldbe terrorists. One the ways we do that is having layers of security all across the globe. The gentlelady has suggested that we be explicit in our language with respect to the possibility of utilizing another tool in our toolbox. as she suggests. where we might be able to devise certain programs that utilize facilities that may exist just outside the port for purposes of looking at trucks for safety purposes. and we might be able to incorporate the terrorist security review at that point as well. If in conjunction with the authorities. local and state authorities. this kind of a grant request is made. we want to make sure that the Department of Homeland Security can. in fact. take a look at it. If it seems to serve the purpose to which we are all dedicated. then it would be allowed under this bill. So I congratulate the gentlelady for introducing the bill. I also congratulate her for representing my hometown. the place I was born and lived in for 42 years. Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2006-05-04
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Chairman. I just say in response to the gentleman from Arizona. we have taken into consideration concerns that he has expressed. We have implemented in this bill an atrisk. that is a riskbased. assessment for grant programs. Not everybody gets something. Secondly. I would assure the gentleman that Apache Junction will not get a grant under this program. nor any landlocked city in Kentucky. This is a port bill. The third thing I would say is this is based on the assessment by the Coast -Guard of what is necessary for the capital investment improvements from a security standpoint for all the ports in the United States. As a matter of fact. we only provide funds for half of the amount that has been identified by the Coast Guard. This is not one of those grant programs that lasts forever. We have a 6year sunset on this. and we have a specified revenue stream in this bill to take care of it. So I would suggest that we have looked at the complaints that the gentleman has. but this is a particular area of national security.
Date: 2006-05-04
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Chairman. again I would suggest that it is important for us to retain the program as it exists. for the Department to retain the discretion reward a small benefit to the Tier 1 members by reducing their ATS score. They do not move to the head of the line. they get to move up just a little bit. It is an encouragement to participate in the program. The only way I can help the gentlewoman by suggesting that penalties do work is to suggest that deterrencedoes work. It is recognized in just about every other aspect of our lives. including the criminal justice system. and I dont know why she does not believe it will not work here. As a matter of fact. in response to the GAO report that she referred to. the Department did reduce the amount of the ATS score reduction for Tier 1 members. so they have responded to some concerns that they were moving too far up the line. Not in front of the line. but too far up the line. They get a small. small benefit at the present time. It is an incentive to participate in a voluntary program. which ultimately gives us more information. has more people working with greater security than they had before. and it helps us our a multilayered approach.
Date: 2006-05-04
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I came to this body with many of you to make sure that we did what was necessary to protect our constituents. I brought this bill to the floor. through the subcommittee. committee and to the floor with that promise in mind. This is not. as the gentleman from Massachusetts said. a Republican bill. This is. in fact. a bipartisan bill. Eighty cosponsors. Passed our committee 290. There is a dispute with respect to this particular technology. and I might just refer you- to the National Journal of this last week talking about this very issue. It said. nice idea. but not very feasible with current technology. Eleven million containers are shipped to the U.S. ports each year. Of those. U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel physically screen. that means inspect. only about 6 percent. or 660.000. It is a noble impulse. but. as a practical matter. it cant be accomplished right now. said Jack Riley. Homeland Security expert with Rand. The key to being able to carry this out in the future is better equipment that scans faster. That is what our bill does. It asks us to accelerate our investigation into new technology. It mandates that the Secretary. if. in fact. he finds that to be usable. practical. adaptable. that he then negotiate with foreign countries to immediately put it into place and. if they refuse. gives our President and our Secretary the right to refuse to allow their cargo into the United States. We dont put a time limit on it. We said as soon as it is feasible to do it. So as a great political philosopher. Don Meredith. once said. "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts. every day would be Christmas." We dont bring you a hope that cannot be fulfilled. We bring you a promise that can be fulfilled in this bill. Please vote down this motion to recommit.
Date: 2006-05-09
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Speaker. despite the fact of having a bit of laryngi.tis. I rise today on a very important issue. I want to commend the Senate for passing Senate 1086. the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. Now that the Senate has joined the House in passing legislation to protect our children. I urge the appointment of a conference committee so that we can see this actually enacted into law this year. Nineyearold Jessica Lunsford lost her life -at the hands of a convicted sex offender more thana year ago. This monster assaulted her. buried her in a plastic garbage bag. and killed her just across the street from her home and her family. We cannot let one more minute go by without closing the loophole in the law that her tragic death revealed. I cant go back to my district and tell Jessicas father that Congresss schedule was too busy and that we will pass something into law next year. The time to act is now.
Date: 2006-05-09
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 803) providing for the concurrence by the House with amendment in the amendment of the Senate to H.R. 1499.
Date: 2006-05-09
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. this is an important bill that will allow our troops serving in combat zones to contribute some of their taxexempt combat pay to retirement savings. Because combat pay is exempt from tax. it does not qualify as earned income that is normally allowed in an individual retirement account. Mr. Speaker. I would nowlike to yield. as much time as she may consume to the Representative from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). 0I 1445
Date: 2006-05-09
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. as Mr. LEVIN pointed out. we passed this legislation before. Our colleagues in the Senate then passed the bill by unanimous consent back in October.. but made a change regarding the effective date.
Date: 2006-05-09
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Speaker. thank you very much. First of all. I apologize. I have a little bit of laryngitis here. but I wanted to join you to express my support for the suburban agenda. You have done a great job. and I know I heard
Date: 2006-05-09
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. CLAY SHAW has introduced a bill called 401kids. What it does is it gives young families the opportunity to save for college for the education expenses of their children taxfree. It is an awfully good idea and one that many. many people are looking forward to taking advantage of. You know. when children are first born. you tend to think. Oh. its going to be so long. but as those of us whose children have grown now. the time does -fly by. So the best way to save. certainly whether it is a parent or a grandparent. is by using a system similar to that which many working people use. a 401(k) program. Mr. Shaws bill is one that allows you to set aside money taxfree soit can grow. so it can help to pay for the education of our children. And it is one that I have heard a lot of support for in my district. We want to make sure that not only parents. but grandparents also can participate in setting aside some money for the future education of the generation who will be in college 18 years from now. or sooner. One of the things that I wanted to also comment on. if you would allow me. is if you put in the word "gangs" and your State into a search engine. it is absolutely astonishing. Coming from Florida. people may think that AARP is the only gang in town. I can assure you that it is not. When we put this information in. we got threeandahalf pages of gangs that were listed. This is a problem for local law enforcement. Yesterday. I actually spoke to a man whose son was killed by a gang in Pasco County. I assured him. and he hasnt heard anything from law enforcement. this happened within the last month. that law enforcement is not sitting by idly. Certainly they are involved with it. because it also goes over into the hate crimes area. And the sheriff and the FBI were all involved in this. Unfortunately. these gangs have no morals. they have no respect for life. and they are taking the lives and terrorizing many. many communities. That is an area that the Suburban Caucus is also focusing on and one that is very. very long overdue. As I say. if you put in your State and .the word "gangs." you would be absolutely amazed. Who would have thought that this would happen in Florida?
Date: 2006-05-10
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Chairman. the deduction of State and local sales taxes is extremely important to my constituents and those in States that do not have an income tax. Do you expect to present a bill to extend this crucial deduction soon?