macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2007-03-20
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Madam Speaker. I want to thank the gentleman and all who have participated in this debate for having done so. I think it has been a good debate. I simply want to reiterate that on such an important issue. I am sorry that we do not have a truly bpenrule. one that obviously would satisfy any definiticn of the word. Under an open rule. for example. Mrs. BIGGERT could have had her holdharmless amendment discussed and debated by the full House. as well as Dr. PRICE and others who wanted to have their amendments debated and discussed. I would simply urge and request of my friends on the other side of the aisle that not only on noncontroversial bills should we have the ability for the minority to be heard. not only on noncontroversial bills or bills of consensus should there be open rules. but rather there should be open rules on other legislation. legislation where there will be genuine debate and even disagreement and discussion. Madam Speaker. having said that. having no other speakers. and reiterating our opposition to the rule. and looking forward to the debate on the underlying legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2007-03-21
Speaker: TIM MURPHY (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Pennsylvania

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding. and Mr. BosWELL for working on this important bill. As a psychologist. I have treated more than my share of those who have suffered from significant depression and have had risk of suicide. many of those veterans of various conflicts. This bill is extremely important in what it does in providing access to care. but there are so many things that we must utilize here as part of this bill. One is to make sure that it is used to provide proper screening for soldiers during basic training and also prior to deployment. Also to make sure that there is ongoing support and availability of that support in combat theaters. There must also be training for officers and leaders in the military to be aware of signs 6f problems and to be aware of treatment options. That training is vital. There also must be access to trained personnel both while the person is in a combat theater and when they return home and after discharge and in the years to follow. because many times the signs of these problems may not actually show up for years. It is important that all of us are aware. for our friends. our spouses. our loved ones who come back from combat. to recognize signs of posttraumatic stress disorder. depression. anger. and drug and alcohol abuse as all signs that there may be a deeper mental illness behind that. But it is important. above all of this. that we eliminate the stigma of mental illness. It is indeed a problem which is associated with biological causes with very real symptoms and very realavailable treatments. But many times soldiers do not seek treatment because they have a fear of being looked down upon by their peers. they fear a loss of rank. they fear discharge or loss of a chance for promotion. They feel there is limited access for trained professionals. and many also think the cost is overwhelming. We have to give hope to those with mental illness. For those who have seen significant problems in their life. some remain mired in those problems and remain victims and do not move forward. We can help them. There are some who are able to survive despite their problems and move forward and flourish and work. And there are others who thrive with their problems. and .turn these into a source of inner strength. -There is a great deal of hope and compassion that we can bring to our soldiers. This bill is a wonderful mechanism to bring that. I applaud all those Who helped on it. and I look forward to its passage.
Date: 2007-03-22
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Let me just ask my friend from California. what about the constitutional expert H2830 cc Ken Starr who has testified under oath that this is constitutional. or Viet Dinh. who was a chief counsel in the Justice Department under President Bush. and John Ashcroft. who wrote the PATRIOT Act and has written an opinion that this is constitutional? Arent their views worth consideration as well?
Date: 2007-03-22
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Let me just say. a strict reading of -the Constitution. if you look just at its face. if you read that. D.C. residents wouldnt have a right to a jury trial because that is only to residents of States. D.C. residents would have no right to sue nonD.C. residents in Federal courts under diversity jurisdiction. which is reserved to residents of States. The full faith and credit clause wouldnt apply to D.C. under the Constitution. because that only applies to States. But Congress. under the District clause. has allowed the District to be treated as a State for those purposes. The previous speaker says. well. if they can do this. why cant they be treated as a State for other purposes? The city argued under the gun ban that they werent a State because Congress hadnt specifically said they were a State. but the District clause is allinclusive and gives Congress the power to determine what the rights are. We have that right. It is not an inherent right to vote in the House of Representatives. but we have that right under the District clause. The difference between the House and the Senate in the constitutional reading is the Senate represents States. Individuals represent States. and each State gets two Senators. And the District of Columbia is clearly not a State. But the House of Representatives is of the people among the several States. a different wording. In fact. at the time the Constitution was created. the people in the District were among the several States. and. in fact. the residents of what are now the District voted for Congress the first 12 years of the Republic. But thisis not a right that goes to the District of Columbia. This is a right that goes to the people of the District of Columbia. and Congress has the right to determine whether they have it or not. This was taken up in 1800 when thd antiFederalists won the Presidency by one electoral vote. if you remember. and in a lame duck session this was debated. and. as usually happens. they punted it to the succeeding Congresses. I think the constitutionality of this thing is very. very clear that. under the District clause. we have the ability in Congress to determine if they get a vote in the House or not. And I just want to set the record straight on that. All of these other rights. jury trial. right to sue. full faith and credit. even the Federal Government would not be allowed to impose Federal taxes in the District under a strict reading of the Constitution. But under law and under the District clause. we have expanded it to the District. I just think the record should reflect that.
Date: 2007-03-22
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

The District of Columbia portion that came from Virginia went back to Virginia in 1846. And I think it is important for Members to understand the reason for the Virginia section of the District petitioned to go back to Virginia was because they were afraid that Congress was going to enact a ban on slaveholding in the District.
Date: 2007-03-22
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

I thank my friend for yielding. We have Republicans quoting liberal professors and Democrats quoting conservative professors in support of where they are. At the end of the day I believe that if the District were a Republican enclave. our side would be getting up screaming for voting rights and the other side would be saying. no. the Constitution is strict. We are trying to take the politics out of this. In the last Congress. both committees with jurisdiction under Republican chairmen cleared this bill for the floor and the Republican leadership denied it an opportunity to come to the floor. We could have had a full and open debate at that point. I think it would have been helpful to the process. Now the Democrats are in control and they are bringing this up. not for a full and open debate. unfortunately. but under a closed rule. We should have an open rule on this. At the time when we are spending billions of dollars and sacrificing thousands of lives to bring democracy to Baghdad. to Afghanistan and around the world. shouldnt we look right next door to our friends and neighbors here in the Nations capital and give them the essence of democracy. the right to vote here on the floor of the House of Representatives? I think we should. There are different views as to how we should do this. The former chairman of the Judiciary Committee says .its constitutional. but doesnt like the atlarge aspect of the Utah seat but we are not able to debate that on the floor today. My friend from California who has long been a champion of voting rights here has a different mechanism under which this could be established. I wish we could have a full and open debate on this. I think it would be helpful to the process. And I am really torn. Because on the one hand our side doesnt want the bill to come up at all. and the other side wants this to come up under very closed rules where we cant have full and open debate. I look forward to a spirited colloquy as we move through this. I am going to support the bill in its final form. of course. as it moves through because I think this is something that is long overdue for citizens of the Nations capital and with a long line of legal precedents which treats the District of Columbia like a State when Congress says it can be treated like a State. Things like the right to trial by jury. paying Federal taxes. other issues that apply only to States under the Constitution but which under the District clause to the Constitution when we apply it to the District. it is treated like a State. And once again. looking at such conservative jurists as Ken Starr. Viet Dinh who wrote the PATRIOT Act for the Bush administration testified under oath as to its constitutionality. This shouldnt ultimately be locked up in this. This should be about basic voting rights for the capital of the Free World.
Date: 2007-03-22
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Speaker. after listening to several Members on the other side of the aisle. I can only come t o one conclusion. and that is. the U.S. Constitution is an inconvenient thing. We have heard that it may take too long to do it the constitutioral way. We have even heard suggested here that. if you oppose this. you are against voting rights. Well. as a former prosecutor. I can tell you I am absolutely. morally convinced of certain people who are not convicted of crimes they committed because of constitutional protections given them during trial. the Constitution was inconvenient. the Constitution did not allow us to do justice. But the Constitution prevailed. because if we ignore the Constitution. we ignore the very compact which is the basis of our relationship with our government. The vote today is more about the representational status of the District of Columbia in this body. It goes to the heart of constitutional governance. Some in this House would have us believe that the Constitution is so sophisticated. so foreign. so strange that the words used. that only a few people can define its meaning. that the people of America are not capable of understanding the words of the Constitution. and. therefore. we should genuflect at the altar of the elite. Well. lets look at the words. Article I. section 2 states very simply: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen by the people of the several States. By the people of the several States. It says in Article I. section 2: No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained the age of 25. been 7 years a citizens of the United States. and who shall not when elected be an inhabitant of the State in which he shall be chosen. Madam Speaker. those words are so simple. and yet we try to make them so complicated. Lets at least uphold the Constitution in this debate.
Date: 2007-03-22
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Madam Speaker. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1422. the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. Our Constitution clearly states that Members of Congress should be chosen by residents of States. However much we might revere our Nations capital and appreciate its residents. our Founders decided not to make it a State. In fact. Alexander Hamilton offered an amendment at the 1788 Constitution ratification convention to give D.C. representation in the House. but his amendment was rejected. In 1978. the 95th Congress passed a similar amendment. but only 16 *of the required 38 States ratified it in the 7 year time period before it expired. The message from these votes is clear: only residents of States may have representation in Congress. The Constitution lays out a method for adding a new State to our Nation. If we truly want D.C. to have congressional representation. we can either work to make D.C. a State. make it part of an existing State. or we can either amend the Constitution. like the 95th Congress attempted to do. And if we actually did this the right way. we wouldnt spend years in litigation while D.C. residents votes hang in the balance. Listen up America! This bill is merely a shortcut around the tools we have at our disposal. and is therefore blatantly unconstitutional. I urge a "no" vote on this bill.
Date: 2007-03-22
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Let me just say to my colleagues. I think the gun ban in the District is ridiculous. and I would join with my colleagues in overturning it. The problem is this motion doesnt do that. Instead of bringing this motion back to the floor forthwith for a vote up or down to continue this resolution and send it to the Senate with the gun ban. it sends it back to the committee. is that correct. Mr. SMITH? It does not send it back to the floor. this sends it to committee. So essentially this vote doesnt go anywhere. You can get your vote on gun rights. but it kills the bill. and that is the intention of this. And it is put there to put Members in a difficult situation. If you want to get a vote on District voter rights. you have to vote against this. I would hope that we can have a free vote on the District gun ban later on. The courts have overturned it. I dont think it is a good law. But this doesnt overturn it because this kills the bill. and with it kills the amendment. I would urge my colleagues to reject it.
Date: 2007-03-22
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I thank my friend from California for the time. I rise to strongly oppose this rule and the underlying legislation that is being brought to the floor. For obviously substantive grounds. I oppose the legislation being brought to the floor. I think that we are at a decisive time. m6re even than a critical time. a decisive time in the conflict in Iraq. And I think that now to be substantively. as this legislation does. tying the hands of our military personnel and. in effect. saying. well. if things dont go totally appropriately. totally correctly. if they dont go right. then you must withdraw. And I think about other wars in the past and what would have happened if we would have had those kinds of requisites. If we had tied the hands of the military leaders in the past. there would have been disaster then. There would be disaster now if this legislation passes. And for procedural reasons also. Mr. Speaker. I am strongly against this legislation. As strongly as I oppose some of the amendments that were brought forth to the Rules Committee. I supported the right of Members to bring forth those ideas and have them considered. but the majority in the Rules Committee rejected them. During the time that we were in the majority. we never brought a wartime supplemental bill to this floor with a closed rule. It is unfortunate that the majority is doing so today. For the substantive reasons that I have mentioned and many others. Mr. Speaker. as well as the significant procedural reasons that I have touched upon. that this House is being closed down with regard to the ability to present amendments today. I urge rejection of this rule as well as of the legislation being brought forth today.
Date: 2007-03-22
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. once again on this floor we have heard an argument stated much like was stated ifi the argument on the bill immediately preceding. Here we are dealing with a rule on a spending bill. and we are told by a numbep of speakers on the other side of the aisle that they would prefer that we do the constitutional thing. that is. that we exercise the power of the purse in the way we are allowed to. that is. to cut off funding for our troops to immediately get them home. But we have heard the reason why they dont bring that to the floor: they dont have the votes. And they use that as a reason why they bring. therefore. unconstitutional restrictions. on the power of the President as Commander in Chief. Much like we heard on the bill before this. because it is the right thing to do with respect to the District of Columbia. we should ignore the words of the Constitution. The problem is. once again. we are being told by those on the other side of the aisle that the Constitution. the Constitution. is an inconvenient. truth. The fact of the matter is the Founding Fathers tried to create a delicate balance between the war powers in the House and the war powers in the executive branch. And they said the President is Commander in Chief and once we go.to war. he makes those decisions. We have the power of the *purse. We have the power of the purse. If you truly believe that we are in the wrong position ii Iraq. have the courage to present to this floor that question which we are given the power to consider under the Constitution. But dont come to the floor and use as your excuse for bringing something which is
Date: 2007-03-23
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1591. This is not an Emergency War Supplemental. it is the Partisan Repayment Act. Indeed. this legislation is less about supplying the troops than feeding the base. There is desperate need for a new Iraq policy. and we should be using this opportunity to have a serious discussion. It is unseemly. even embarrassing. to use pork to buy support for bad policy .on a bill as important as this one. It makes us look as trifling and greedy as our enemies claim. The wellbeing of our men and women in uniform is in the balance. as is the future of the Middle East. If ever there was a time to win on the strength of ones ideas. this is it. I share the concerns of my colleagues regarding the progress of the war. and I believe there is value in setting benchmarks. Ours should not be an openended. unquestioning commitment to the Iraqis. They do need to assume more responsibility for their own affairs. It is not the job of our troops to referee partisan quarrels. nor is it our job to babysit the Iraqi government. It is foolish. however. to make such milestones public. It is even more foolish to announce a date for withdrawal. Doing so gives the enemy too much information and too many options. It is also foolish to codify deadlines. Whos to say the Iraqi government wont make a good faith effort to accomplish the tasks required of them? It would be wise to allow them flexibility. not give them a dropdead date. We ourselves are working under a continuing resolution because we could not pass more than two appropriations bills last year. Our 5day workweeks are often 4 days longwho are we to set a beadline in statute? There is a pressing need to formulate a new policy for Iraq. I am disappointed the Democrats have yet to allow a serious debate on this. the most important issue facing the Congress today. Rather. we have wasted time with a nonbinding resolution regarding tacticsnot even strategy. Now we send the Iraqis a laundry list of errands and a predetermined result. Success in Iraq will require a broad based policy shift. The Iraq Study Group report includes 79 recommendations covering all facets of public policymilitary. diplomatic. economic. and social. This report should form the basis of a productive discussion. Unfortunately. the Democratic leadership has opted for a hodgepodge of sound bites masquerading as serious legislation. They have stifled debate rather than encouraged it by refusing to allow any amendments. Mr. Speaker. this is but the first act in the play. Our own servicemen and women do need the funding this bill would provide. I am confident once we get beyond this charade we will be able to craft responsible legislation to give it to them.
Date: 2007-03-26
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Madam Speaker. I rise today to express my concern that the Democrats will not extend tax measures critical to the American people. Residents in my own State are at risk. Floridians currently can deduct their sales tax from the Federal income tax. However. this deduction expires this year. As Democrats set their agehda for the coming year. there is talk of offsetting increases in Federal spending by raising taxes for millions of Americans. Quite frankly. I worry that the use of this provision will be to pay lor additional spending. Constituents dont want additional taxes. They want us to be more conservative in spending. Listen up. America. Congress needs to be sure that taxpayers do not face unnecessary tax increases. I appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that our constituents are able to keep more of their hardearned money.
Date: 2007-03-27
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. yielding myself such time as I may consume before yielding to my good friend from New York. it is important to note when. again. seemingly small but significant precedents are changed. This is a precedent change. We have not seen it for many. many years. With regard to the motions to recommit. what we have seen in this Congress is that they often have been passing. But that is more precisely because the membership. when finding out the merits of the motions to recommit on a bipartisan basis have been supporting them. But. no. it is of concern. and it is important to note that if there is a step being taken. as it seems that it is being taken. to limit that very important. often sole procedural remedy available to the minority which is the motion to recommit. that it is very disturbing. At this time. Mr. Speaker. I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished friend from New York .
Date: 2007-03-27
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. at this time it is my pleasure arid privilege to yield 4 minutes to my distinguished friend and colleague from Pennsylvania .