macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2005-06-15
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. let us understand first what we are talking about here. We are talking about national security letters. NSLs. They are administrative subpoenas that can be used in international counterterrorism and foreign counterintelligence investigations. not even domestic terrorist investigations. So we are limited to that category. Secondly. some of the statements that have been made here are questionable in terms of their conclusions. that is. that there is no reporting to Congress. As a matter of fact. NSLs are reported to our intelligence committees. both the House and the Senate. Obviously. not all Members are on those committees. but it is my information that Members can go to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and examine the documents presented by the Department of Justice in this regard. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of administrative subpoenas where the demand is definite and the information sought is relevant. As. with other types of subpoenas. the national security letter is a request for information and is not selfexecuting. In fact. they cannot enforce it. If the recipient refuses to accept the request for information. there is no enforcement mechanism. The FBI would have to obtain an enforcement order from a Federal court. not an NSL. In fact. the Justice Department has argued both in and out of court that the current law allows for a recipient to obtain preenforcement judicial review of an NSL. As a matter of fact. some of us working on this on the Committee on the Judiciary believe that information ought to be presented to the recipient. They ought to be notified ahead of time. and that is one of the things we ought to be working on.
Date: 2005-06-15
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I appreciate what the gentleman is saying. It is a third party. There is no doubt about it. In some cases it is essential to be able to get that information if you are involving yourself in a counterterrorism investigation precisely because you do not want those people to know you are going after that. But the recipient of the letter has the ability to refuse to give that to the authorities. The idea that somehow we have such an abuse of these letters flies in the face of any presentation we have had frbm the committees of jurisdiction. that is. the Intelligence Committees of the House and the Senate. There has been no report to us that there has been an abuse. I think those of us on the Committee on the Judiciary can work on this if we want to refine it more. if we want to make sure that there is an affirmative presentation to the recipient to let them know they do not have to comply. if there are some sort of other protections we want to wrap around it. But I also think it is wrong for us to try to do it in this particular venue. and especially when we have a defini-. tion of all health records. That goes beyond just personal records. The gentlemans definition is much broader than that in terms of the whole health industry. the whole health insurance industry. I suggest this is a precipitous action by this body. and I would ask Members to vote down the gentlemans amendment.
Date: 2005-06-16
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. As we debate the 2006 Defense Appropriations Act. I rise to commend the actions of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Brigadier General Casey McClain. Their swift effort to implement a tough policy against sexual assaults in the military is praiseworthy. I became aware of the troublesome issue in the military when the Congressional Caucus for Womens Issues held a hearing last spring to give voice to military women who were victims of sexual assault. In this time of conflict. when brave young men and women are willing to put their lives at risk. it is essential that those soldiers do not fear the actions of their comrades in arms. The act of sexual assault is condemned in civilian society. It is especially unforgivable when one soldier sexually assaults another. The bonds of trust and respect unite soldiers on the battlefield. It therefore is imperative that this trust not be eroded because of insufficient policies addressing sexual assault among our troops. After the hearing. Congress acted last year to include language in the Defense Authorization Act that required DOD to develop a definition of sexual assault that is uniform for all of the Armed Forces. That was part of the problem before. It was no small task. yet the Joint Task Force on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response led by Brigadier General McClain carried out this charge with the utmost professionalism and timeliness. As a result of their efforts. I am pleased to report that the new policy on confidential reporting went into effect just earlier this week. The new policy provides for a confidential means for soldiers to report assaults and ensures that victims feel safe and that they are encouraged not to hide. but rather to report this violation. It is clear that the Department of Defense places a high priority on the prevention of and response to sexual assault within the military. I commend their actions. but I remind them that this Congress will continue to exercise authority over them to ensure that this policy is continued.
Date: 2005-06-16
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I too understand the gentlemans concern on particular employees. The difficulty here is if the Congress starts coming out with each and evpry single. group trying to protect this group or the other from competitive. sourcing. we lose basically one of the best tools the executive branch has to make it run more efficiently. Federal employees win 70 percent of the A76 competitions at this point. But in almost every case. even when they have won. they have retooled .themselves and made themselves more efficient than when they started. And to cherrypick one group or another. I think we will have every Member coming to the floor trying to protect this group or the other group. and the whole thing falls apart. And if that happens. the Federal executive branch loses its major tool in trying to become more efficient and saving the taxpayers dollars. I do not know anything about the specifics of this one. but I know from a committee perspective we have tried to look at this. we have tried to give Federal employees appeals rights now. so that if they lose it that they can have appeals rights and things they have not had in the past. We have tried to give. them protections. But. Mr. Chairman. I would also join the gentleman from Virginia in opposing this amendment. and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
Date: 2005-06-16
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. just a couple of things. First of all. to my friends here. I understand their concern. I tell them that I do not know anything about this particular office. But it is not privatization. it is competitive sourcing. Basically. this allows the government sector to compete with the private sector to see how we can deliver a service to taxpayers the most efficiently. The government wins 70 percent of these competitions. but in most cases ends up being more efficient as a result of that. They are able to retool their organizations and do things that. without the competition. the marketplace would probably not be incentivized to do. Secondly. there are no numerical quotas or figures. In fact. Congress took those out several years ago when this administration set targeted figures in terms of the amounts of competitive sourcing they wanted to do under OMB Circular A76. So that should not be part of this. It is not legal to be doing this. and I hope that is not driving it in this case. But. again. for Congress to come back and cherrypick different segments and say. this is exempt. and this is exempt. basically destroys the whole system. And once again. although I am sympathetic with where the gentleman wants to go on this. I think there are other ways to accomplish it rather than coming to Congress. I think this will encourage everybody to offer these kinds of amendments. and we will lose one of the greatest tools we have toward government efficiency. and I would urge the amendment be defeated.
Date: 2005-06-16
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I think the gentleman makes a strong case. for this particular item. I would be happy to work with the gentleman as well in my position as chairman of the Committee on Government Reform to make sure that these employees are fully protected as we move forward on this and given the benefit of the doubt.
Date: 2005-06-17
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of the Citrus County Coalition of Veterans. We just this week recognized Flag Day. I would like to recognize this very special group that provided flags to elementary and high schools in Citrus County. Why did they do it? Because the Florida Legislature passed a law that said every classroom has to have a flag. Many parents were surprised that they did not already have flags. but I am very proud that in Citrus County. the Veterans Coalition. which is a combination of so many veterans organizations. that they actually stepped up to the plate. collected money from their members and from the community. and that they were able to provide the appropriate flags for the classroom. Certainly having a real. tangible flag in each classroom will serve as a poignant reminder of the freedoms we enjoy in our great Nation. Again. I would like to thank the Citrus County Veterans Coalition for their efforts to ensure that our schoolchildren truly understand the meaning of the Stars and Stripes.
Date: 2005-06-20
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. Let me say to my friend from New York. I appreciate very much the intention of the amendment. I have got to oppose it in its current form. It seems to me that this Act has some very good attributes to it. and the argument may be in some of the "designated industry groups that are listed. One of the problems is that the participating agencies currently will designate areas that are currently dominated by small businesses as small business setasides. These are areas that in full and open competition. small businesses are going to win anyway. and by using their percentages in .these areas. it means that. small businesses who could use the setasides in other areas are not able to use it. So I think what we have here is the law of unintended consequences. We are taking areas such as lawn services. roofing. siding contractors. glass and glazing contractors. masonry. areas that in full and open competition. small businesses are winning by overwhelming margins. but the agencies are taking these areas and saying we are going to designate these as small business setasides and use their percentages in these areas. and that means that small businesses canriot penetrate other areas. So it is really for these reasons that I rise to oppose the amendment. because I think it shifts the burden in these cases where small businesses are currently winning open competition. and -it uses the allocation for setasides into these areas that I think small businesses could benefit in other areas. in some of the technology areas. in some of the IT areas. That is my concern. Let me just make one point. I think the argument ought to be some of the designated industry groups in this case where maybe we see large businesses coming in and taking over. and we could work under those areas appropriately if the case can be made that small business dominance in these areas is not hit. but without that we have not added a nickel to what small businesses get under the setaside programs. We have not added a percentage. We just shift the burden.
Date: 2005-06-20
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. reclaiming my time. absolutely because what happens is when we shift the small business setaside allocations into these programs. we are taking it away from other programs. these areas where small businesses are designated. I do not know about the gentlewomans percentage of 78 percent 38 percent. but what I would argue is if there is an issue here. I know I would be happy to work with her. and I am sure the chairman of the Committee on Small Business. to look at some of these designated industry groups where perhaps small business is not dominating and was intended to. and we work on that rather than gutting the whole provision. That would be the approach that I would take. I would be happy to work with the gentlewoman on that. But this amendment guts the whole program. and I think ultimately it is not good for the government because I think the government is not getting small business setasides in some of the innovative areas where they can go and they are giving it to areas where small businesses tend to dominate in full and open competition. So that is my rationale for ppposing the amendment.
Date: 2005-06-20
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. reclaiming my time. this does not add a percentage. This does not add a nickel to the small business setaside program. It does not add a percentage. It just shifts the burden. And the argument ought to be going into the particular designated industry groups where the gentlewoman is claiming small businesses used to dominate and are losing out. and let us look at those and let us try to be fair in that way. But for heavens sake. in areas like lawn care. in some of these services levels that are low tech. let us not set aside small businesses setasides there where small businesses dominate in full and open competition. Let us put them in areas where we can improve it.
Date: 2005-06-20
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman.. reclaiming my time. they may get it here. but they will take it away from setasides in other areas because the overall setaside percentages in thepe participating agencies does not change at all. So the problem with that is that we are shifting it and we are moying the small business setasides into areas that small businesses also dominate. I will refer the gentlewoman. frankly. to the statute in the areas that are the designated industry groups under the statute. and I think it is clear looking at this that many of these areas. siding contractors. roofing. masonry. framing contractors. these are areas that are traditionally dominated by small business and will continue to be. But I will be happy to work with the gentlewoman on designated industry groups and changing that around if she can make the case.
Date: 2005-06-21
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution recognizing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day. and expressing the sense of Congress that history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and solving the challenges of the future.
Date: 2005-06-21
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
Date: 2005-06-21
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. on behalf of the Committee on Government Reform. I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 160 that recognizes the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day. This resolution. offered by my distinguished colleague the gentleman from Illinois . is a meaningful reminder of the monumental day that marks the end of slavery in the United States. Originally an AfricanAmerican celebration. Juneteenth is certainly now a day for all Americans to observe the end of slaverr in the United States which was. with little question. the most dreadful period in our Nations .history. Mr. Speaker. as the Civil War raged in late 1862. President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. which would become effective on January 1. 1863. The proclamation declared all slaves in the Southern Confederate States free from New Years Day 1863 forward. Juneteenth is a celebration of June 19. 1865. on which date news of the Emancipation Proclamation finally reached Texas. which was the last secessionist State to emancipate its slaves. nearly 2 years after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. The delay was a result of there being nearly no Union presence in south Texas to implement President Lincolns decree. Not until Union General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston. Texas. on the gulf coast and read the proclaination from the docks on the original Juneteenth day did the slaves learn they were freed. The news quickly spread throughout Texas. and celebrations and unimaginable jubilation followed. After the war ended. Congress ratified the 13th amendment to the Constitution in December 1865 which outlawed all nonpunitive slavery and involuntary servitude in any part of the United States. While it is a wonderful event. Juneteenth Independence Day remains primarily a somber date. It is a day to honor and show consideration for those who lived and suffered through the tortures of more than 21/2 centuries of slavery in America. It is a day that our Nation has gradually accepted. During reconstruction. law usually dictated that Juneteenth celebrations must be held in the outskirts of towns. Finally. June 19th became a Texas State holiday in 1979. Today. people of all backgrounds across the Nation observe Juneteenth Independence Day through a variety of activities. Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for authoring House Concurrent Resolution 160. This past Sunday marked the 140th anniversary of Juneteenth Independence Day. and I am pleased that this body has chosen to consider this resolution in such a timely fashion. I strongly support the purpose of this resolution. Mr. Speaker...I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2005-06-21
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Speaker. I urge all Members to support the adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 160. and I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2005-06-21
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. one of the previous speakers said we just do not get it. To him I would say. and to others. yes. we do get it. I came back to this body after 9/11 precisely because of the attack on Americans and the loss of three people that I knew personally. I came back here with the idea that we needed to fight for America and defend ourselves and not tear up the Constitution in the process. The suggestion made by some that we -are engaged in widescale torture. that we are somehow morally equivalent with others is absolutely absurd. The proper way for us to respond to allegations is to do what the Congress is supposed to do. and what the gentleman from. Texas said we are about. which is the proper congressional oversight. not mock hearings like we had last week. not setting up independent commissions. not politicizing this. but doing it in the way the Constitution requires us to do it. If there is any problem. it is with the Congress not doing proper oversight. We have the commitment from the committees and the subcommittees to do it. Let us rise above partisanship. Let us do the right thing. and let us get rid of this nonsense of a moral equivalency between the United States and some of those terrible regimes around the world. It is not worthy of this body.
Date: 2005-06-21
Speaker: JO ANN DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Madam Speaker. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2475. the Intelligence Authorlzation Act of 2006. I congratulate Chairman HOEKSTRA for presenting a strong bill that addresses our major intelligence requirements. Madam Speaker. as chair of the Intelligence Policy Subcommittee. I have been tasked to look at the vast range of threats faced by the United States. and work to ensure that the intelligence services devote the necessary resources to respond to those threats. As we consider this bill. we are in the midst of a war with a vicious enemya war on terrorism that must be won. Our troops are also engaged in a bloody effort to stabilize Iraq. Our warfighters must have timely. accufate information about the enemy. and this bill makes every effort to guarantee that intelligence is provided. Thus. there is an essential force protection component to this authorization. But we cannot focus solely on the collection of nearterm. tactical battlefield intelligence. We must also ensure that our political leaders have -good information about big picture threats to U.S. interests globally. The Intelligence Community must focus its resources on the nuclear programs in Iran. North Korea. and other major proliferators of weapons of mass destruction. We must fully understand the ongoing military modernization of China. and know how Beijing intends to. use its emerging capabilities. Russia remains a nuclear superpower with thousands of nuclear warheads. and prudence dictates we have good intelligence regarding Russias intentions. The behavior of these important nations can have a deep impact on our national security. and the United States must not become the victim of a "strategic surprise". To protect our people and inform our political leaders. we must have the capability to collect good. accurate information. It is increasingly difficult to predict where the next crisis may erupt. but our leaders must have the ability to anticipate significant events. H.R. 2475 places much needed emphasis on our collection and analysis capabilities. I am pleased that this bill increases the investment in human intelligence and the capabilities they provide for us. It provides additional resources for professional training and language education for intelligence officers being deployed overseas. The legislation also authorizes powerful new tools that will assist our intelligence analysts to sort through and properly understand the information that has been gathered. At a time when the threats to u.s. national securty are so great. H.R. 2475 supports the effort to provide our leaders with focused. timely intelligence. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and once again. I congratulate my chairman on his outstanding effort.
Date: 2005-06-21
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H

Of Floridafrom the Committee on Rules. submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 109144) on the resolution (H. Res. 334) providing for consideration of the bill making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending September 30. 2006. and for other purposes. which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
Date: 2005-06-22
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H

of er. I was de- Florida. Mr. Speaker. H. Res. 334 is a e on H.J. Res. structured rule that provides for the in Brownwood. consideration of H.R. 2985. the fiscal Lance Corporal year 2006 Legislative Branch Approhe 11th District priations Act. as well as five amendIRD reflect that ments. The rule provides for one hour oted "yea." of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member on the. ComiIDERATION mittee on Appropriations. It also proEGISLATIVE vides for one motion to recommit with IONS ACT. or without instructions. Mr. Speaker. the legislation before us 3ALART of today appropriates $2.87 billion for the direction of operations of the legislative branch of I call up government. The bill is fiscally sound ask for its and includes a modest 1.7 percent increase from the last fiscal year. It proution. as fol- vides over a billion dollars for the operation of this House of Representatives.