macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2007-03-27
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 1401. the Rail and Public Transportation Security. Act of 2007. This rule is overly restrictive because it prohibits several good amendments like my. colleague just enumerated as well as an amendment that I had tried to get in the bill. I think it is shocking because members are the most knowledgeable about this bill. having worked on it for weeks now. our members of the committee. One of the amendments that the rule excludes was the rule that basically said if we have an assessment out there of perhaps a lack of security or an area that we need additional resources in. this information is going to become public. Think about what the terrorists would do. The amendment would have filled this security gap by exempting all sensitive information from Freedom of Information Act requests. It directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue regulations that would prohibit unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information such as security plans. vulnerability assessments. and riskbased criteria. Mr. Speaker. the International Association of Fire Chiefs recently wrote a letter supporting my amendment. and I will include that letter in the REQORD.
Date: 2007-03-27
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. at this time it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to a distinguished new Member who is already making an impactin this House with his forceful leadership and his knowledge and wisdom. Mr. BILIRAKIS.
Date: 2007-03-27
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker. this is a good day in some respects. and that is that we have this bill on the floor. H.R. 1401. the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007. It follows up on work that we began in the last Congress on a bipartisan basis. I would say the committee acted on a bipartisan basis all the way through. It is a shame. however. that bipartisanship stops- at the edge of the Rules Committee. When we made an attempt to ask for reasonable amendments in this regard from members of the committee of jurisdiction. the Homeland Security Committee. we were rejected. I might just talk about the one amendment that I had asked to be considered dealing with whistleblower protection. The bill has in it now a provision which is extraordinary in its breadth and which is unique in its application of criminal law. People wonder why we would be concerned about this when we all agree we ought to allow whistleblowers. when acting properly. to expose wrongdoing. The problem is we are in an area dealing with security. and this would allow an employee to make an individualized determination. without further review or even -perhaps without all the relevant information. to disclose classified information. We ought to be concerned about that. My amendment would have dealt with that. For some reason now in the managers amendment we are going to exempt these criminal penalties for many Federal employees. but we are going to impose them on State and local employees. criminal penalties and punitive damage awards. So we are going to have a situation in terms of sensitive information that might be revealed by an employee and therefore action taken against that employee. and the government unable to respond to that. -because under this whistleblower protection law. there will not be the ability for the government to talk about protecting basically state secrets. What we are talking about here are areas of sensitive information. This goes along with the gentlewoman from Floridas amendment to try and protect sensitive information. Both of those amendments were rejected. I would hope that Members would vote down this rule so we might have a chance to do our job and at the same time protect sensitive information.
Date: 2007-03-27
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida . one such distinguished Member who had two germane amendments before the Rules Committee that were shut out. He is the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Date: 2007-03-27
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. we are going to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated. I will amend. the rule to make in order two amendments.
Date: 2007-03-27
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present.
Date: 2007-03-27
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I thank the ranking member for that and at the outset if I could ask the gentleman from Colorado if he wduld engage in a colloquy to clarify a section of the bill with me.
Date: 2007-03-27
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. At committee. the gentleman and I worked to clarify language in section 120. which he just referred to. regarding background checks on employees. We included language that specified that nothing in this section of the bill was intended to preempt State and local governments from enacting or enforcing requirements regarding criminal background checks. Further. we agreed. and the committee agreed in report language. that this section was not intended to prohibit an employer. including State and local governments. from making any employment decisions otherwise permissible under Federal. State or local law. I would also like to clarify my understanding that this section is intended to impact employers who are complying with the Department of Homeland Security requirements. regulation or guidance. but does not apply to employers who conduct background checks for other reasons. I would ask the gentleman and yield to him whether this is his understanding of the intent of the section.
Date: 2007-03-27
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I thank the gentleman for working with me on this bill and for clarifying this section. Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the bill. This is a bill which we have worked on for some time. We started in the last Congress. holding hearings on this in a bipartisan basis. We attempted to get information from the public and private sector in these areas of our economy. I congratulate the chairman of the full committee and the chairperson of the subcommittee for moving forward with dispatch on this issue. We did work on other sectors of our economy with respect to the issue of security against terrorist threats. We did very good work in th6 area of port security. We did very good work in the area of chemical facility security. I hope that we will continue to do work in the area of the trucking industry. Where we are talking about the rail system and mass transit systems there is a demonstrated need for us to act. for us to have guidance from the Federal Government to State and local governments in cooperation with State and local governments. and for us to. have guidance for the- private sector and to work with the private sector in dealing with this threat that threatens all of us. public and private sector combined. At the same time. I would suggest that there are a couple of concerns that I have about what form this bill may take. One of the areas that I tried. by way of presenting a suggested amendment to the Rules Committee to jrnprove this legislation. was in the area of whistleblower. I mentioned this earlier in the debate on the rule. but let me just stress why this is important. We are dealing with an area in which we are requiring and requesting that other entities work with the Federal Government in coming up with security measures. And as a result of that. there will be information that we do not want shared with the outside world. that we certainly do not want shared in a public venue such that those who would do us harm would have an opportunity to be effective in their intent. And that is why I was concerned. and other Members on my side of the aisle were concerned. about the whistleblower provisions here. which. frankly. do not carve out an exception for that area of the law dealing with securitysensitive information. This is of such concern that I understand the administration would recommend a veto of this bill. not on the substance of it. but on the whistleblower provision. and there is no reason for us to run into that difficulty. Secondly. in the area that will be discussed by the gentlelady from Florida.
Date: 2007-03-27
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Chairman. I rise today to discuss H.R. 1401. the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007. Securing our Nations rail and public transportation systems has long been a priority for the Homeland Security Committee. However. many different competing priorities elbowed this issue out of the way as we faced growing concern about border and port security. Our Committee addressed these issues headon under the leadership of Ranking Memberthen ChairmanPETER KING. and made great strides in securing our homeland. However. attacks in London and Madrid are stark illustrations of the urgency with which Congress must address rail and mass transit security. H.R. 1401 requires transportation providers to conduct vulnerability assessments and implement security plans. The bill also mandates security training for transportation workers. These steps are crucial in bringing rail and mass transit security up to par to the level of airports and seaports. I also appreciate that our Committee adopted several amendments I offered during our makrup. Transportation workers will now have to undergo a background check that will look at both criminal history and current immigration status. We cannot afford to give criminals and terrorists the access to our secure sites. The American people do not understand or accept such a risk. and nor do I. � My other amendment specified that some of the new training exercises take place at the border. We have all heard rumblings over the last few years about criminal gang activity. particularly along the Southern border. It makes sense to have a portion of training dedicated to an area with a high risk. However. I must express my disappointment that the Rules Committee did not make in order my amendment to better secure sensitive information from Freedom of Information Act Requests. I fear without this additional language. security plans and risk assessment criteria could easily fall into the wrong hands. Further. I have grave concerns about the amount of money we are spending in the bill without these protections. The American people would not thank us for all of our work in airports or seaports if something happens to a major rail or subway carrier. I want to thank Chairman THOMPSON and Ranking Member KING for their tireless work on this bill and for working with me on my amendments.
Date: 2007-03-27
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. No. no. I take my time back. The Markey amendment does not just deal with a study. Read the Markey amendment. It starts with a study. Then it requires the Secretary to come forward with regulations. Then it requires certain action on the part of all the parties involved. It is not just a mere study. Working that hard on it. I frankly do not appreciate you trying to say that it is just a study. Thlat is not true whatsoever.
Date: 2007-03-27
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I rise today in support of the amended version of H.R. 1562. During the Committee debate on this bill I raised concerns about the revenue offset used to pay for this legislation. The original bill would have permitted the IRS to seize the assets of a taxpayer prior to a hearing. The provision was scored as raising $240 million. The reason for the change was that there are some taxpayers who are serial abusers of the payroll tax withholding mechanism who needed to be shut down to prevent a drain on revenues. The problem is that we cannot begin to close the tax gap at the expense of basic civil liberties. We would have a taxpayer revolt at such heavyhanded tactics. Congress put in place many taxpayer protections against heavyhanded IRS tactics and I think we need to be very careful as we contemplate rolling back any of them in the name of closing the "tax gap." The amended bill before us now would go after the serial abusers of the payroll tax system. It would require that if someone has already been through the hearing process in the last two years. then they dont get to keep scamming the tax system. They cannot hide behind the protections meant for taxpayers who have simply made a mistake in filing payroll taxes for their employees. The protection of having a hearing prior to IRS seizure of assets is important in many circumstances. One of the leading reasons for this protection is innocent spouse relief. If a husband messes up his companys payroll taxes in one quarter. the Committee approved bill and the version already approved by the other body. would have allowed the IRS to seize his wifes assets and give her no ability to claim innocent spouse relief until roughly eight months after the seizure. I dont think this is good policy and I think it is a lousy way to close the "tax gap." I commend Chairman RANGEL and Ranking Member MCCRERY for working to be sure that these situations are addressed by the amendment we have worked out. I hope that whenever the House and Senate put this revenue raiser into a final agreement later this year. that the House version prevails. Again. I support the version of this legislation that we are debating on the House floor today and I want to personally thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for working so hard to address these concerns.
Date: 2007-03-28
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Chairman. I rise to control the 5 minutes reserved for the opposition. although I am not opposed to the amendment.
Date: 2007-03-28
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Chairman. I support the amendment before us. This measure would increase the reimbursement rate available through the veterans beneficiary travel program to the level currently enjoyed by Federal employees. including Members of Congress who travel. It would also eliminate the travel deductible. which imposes an additional burden on veterans. I have been pushing this issue for quite some time now and am happy to see it reach the floor of the House of Representatives. In my district. which spans eight counties. many veterans have to travel long distances to access health care. Considering todays gas prices. one can understand the enormous expenses incurred by those in need of care. Worse yet. with many veterans living on fixed incomes. the current reimbursement rate can seriously harm their standard of living. I know I have been contacted by many veterans also telling me about the burden that the deductibility imposes on us. It astounds me that in providing this benerfit our government holds veterans to a different standard than Federal employees. I commend the gentleman for introducing this amendment. and as he knows. our two staffs have been working together to put in an individual bill. I believe that America needs to listen up. It is time for us to fix this inequity and support passage of this important amendment.
Date: 2007-03-28
Speaker: TIM MURPHY (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Pennsylvania

Mr. Chairman. I ask to claim the time allotted for debate of the amendment offered by Ms. JOHNSON. although I do not oppose the amendment.
Date: 2007-03-29
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of the Republican substitute. There is a clear difference between the two proposals on the table. ] 1300 The Democratic plan. despite the protestations of its proponents. does. in fact. contain the largest tax increase in American history. We have heard time and again their referring to the language that is in their bill which talks about tax cuts. But I would suggest their tax cut promises are written with invisible ink. They talk about how they want to do it. but there is no means by the way they will do it. And they also promise to have a balanced budget and yet. without the tax increases inherent in their proposal. they cannot reach it. We have no tax increases. period. None in this budget. In the Democratic budget. they include a $22 billion increase in nondefense spending above the Presidents request. on top of the $22 billion of unrequested spending in the supplemental and $6 billion in the omnibus. Our bddget includes a freeze on nondefense. nonsecurity spending. while providing additional funds for veterans. for the war on terrorism. for Community Development Block Grants. for NIH. and Science and Technology. In entitlements. they criticize us for attempting to look at entitlements and to bring across savings. We admit we attempt to do that. because we recognize the obligation we have as stewards of the peoples money and stewards of the future of our children and grandchildren. So come out here and criticize us for attempting to look at these entitlement programs to begin. just to begin. to get the courage to deal with what we know we have to deal with. Now. our budgets can either be made so flimsy that they will fly away in the wind. or they can actually have some weight to them so that we begin the tough process. and it is a tough process. of dealing with reform of entitlements so that we do the job that is expected of us by our constituents and. more importantly. by our children and our grandchildren. I rise in strong support of this substitute by the Republicans.
Date: 2007-04-18
Speaker: TIM MURPHY (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Pennsylvania

Mr. Speaker. eighty percent of health care dollars are spent treating chronic illnesses. These are complex cases where patients have multiple doctors. treatments. medications and tests. Errors can result from confusion and miscommunication. but case management can be effective in reducing these errors. However. Medicare and Medicaid do not reimburse for patient care management. Unnecessary hospitalizations increased from about 1 percent for a patient with just one condition to 27 percent for a person with eight chronic conditions. The Federal Government will pay billions to treat chronic illness that could have been prevented. The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center found that care management can reduce rehospitalizations of diabetics by 75 percent. Another study reduced hospitalizations of patients with heart disease by 50 percent. We cannot continue to finance a broken health care system and expect different results. We need to transform our health care system to make sure that we focus on patient safety. patient quality and .patient choice. I urge my colleagues to learn more about.patient management care programs by visiting my Web site at murphy.house.gov.
Date: 2007-04-18
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. most of us just returned from 2 weeks talking with constituents. In the Third District of Texas. folks only had one thing on their mind. illegal immigration. They were hopping mad that illegal immigrants come into this country at all. They told me any proposal that would grant automatic American citizenship to illegal immigrants would be blanket amnesty. and theyre right. People have waited years to become American citizens through the legal proper channels. Granting blanket amnesty to untold millions of illegal immigrants undercuts the merits of creating a legal citizenship program. Just like in the 1980s. if we grant amnesty now. many more illegal immigrants will simply flock into our country and demand their day for amnesty. America must be a Nation that respects the rule of lawand enforces it.
Date: 2007-04-18
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. it is with great sadness that I address this Chamber today. As the parent of four children in college. I share the horror and the rage. the grief and the sorrow of the larger Virginia community. I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this resolution expressing our. sorrow and offering condolences over the tragic events that took place Monday at Virginia Tech. Our hearts. our prayers and our thoughts go out to the families of those who lost lives. the injured and their families. and all those affected by this terrible tragedy. including the family of the troubled young man who perpetrated this crime. ] 1100 The coming together of communities. the reaching over the fences to lend a hand of support at this hour of need has been touching. From the Washington Nationals wearing Virginia Tech caps last night. to the community groups that gathered spontaneously across the Commonwealth to share their sorrow. the picture of the Commonwealth today is one we can. as usual. take great pride in. Yesterday I traveled with my colleagues to Blacksburg for the convocation. and last evening over 500 Korean Americans assembled at the Fairfax County Government Center to express their outrage. to offer their prayers. to start the healing process that follows such tragic events. Mr. Speaker. we Virginians are known for looking out for each other and this has been no different. The outpouring of love. sympathy and caring for each other has been astonishing. The pictures of students comforting each other. of students and teachers helping each other search for answers in these dark hours has been particularly moving. All of us around the Commonwealth must come together to find the strength to move forward. Were family. Weve been deeply wounded. Thats what families do when theyre hurt. They look to each other for strength. for inspiration and for meaning. Mr. Speaker. we hurt for the victims and we honor their lives. Thats what families do. We close ranks and lend each other support in our darkest hours. Benjamin Franklin said more than 200 years ago that those things that hurt instruct. Let us learn from this. Let us hurt. Its good for the soul. It helps us to heal. It is. sadly. the only way to move forward. Again. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
Date: 2007-04-18
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. it is my privilege to yield 4- minutes to my good friend. the gentleman from Georgia. Dr. GINGREY.