macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2007-06-06
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts kind words. What I had been referring to before with regard to the process is that I dont believe that any harm would have been done if the majority would have kept its promise of open rules. It is the majority that promised during the campaign that they were going to bring a .significant amount. as many as possible. of bills to the floor under open rules. And this is. a noncontroversial bill. and. yes. they made the amendments in order by the Members who went to the Rules Committee. and that is appreciated. So what harm would it have causedif this legislation would have been brought forth under an open rule. as was proposed. in amendment form. by the ranking member of Rules? That is what my point was. No harm vould have been done. And. simply. I would like to remind the majority of the promises that the majority made during the campaign of bringing forth legislation under open rules. So I dont believe that any harm would have accrued if they would have kept their promise. Thats all. But with regard to the apology. I certainly appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts kind words. Mr. Speaker. And. again. with regard to this underlying legislation. which is of extreme importance. there is a national consensus in the United States that we not only have an obligation. but we must do everything in our power so that the democratically elected government in Afghanistan survives. and that is what this- legislation is about. We will have other continuing debates on nearby countries and what our obligations are or what is. rather. in our national interest with regard to the stability in neighboring countries of Afghanistan as well and in trying to prevent neighboring countries from becoming basically safe harbors for international terrorism. E 1340 Those are legitimate debates. Today. the legislation being brought forth. Mr. Speaker. is one where there is a national consensus in the United States. thank God. fortunately. and that is that with regard to that country that was for so long oppressed by the brutal Taliban and that had given sanctuary to the terrorists that carried out the mass murders of September 11. 2001. against the United States of America. that we certainly have an obligation to do everything we can to make certain that the people of Afghanistan have as much ability. that they have the wherewithal to proceed along a path towards a consolidated. representative democracy in peace and with prosperity. That is why we agree that this legislation is very important. and it reauthorizes critical programs. programs of critical importance with regard to our assistance to Afghanistan that were authorized initially and appropriated by the Congress of the United States in 2002. and 2004. Mr. Speaker. having said that. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2007-06-06
Speaker: JO ANN DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. on rollcall Nos. 431 and 432 I am not recorded. Had I been present. I would have voted "yea."
Date: 2007-06-07
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Lets understand some first principles. Human dignity is not reserved for adult human beings. Thepremise of hqman rights protections is that they are not contingent on arbitrary criteria such as size or location. Ethical considerations must be weighed in light of the advances being made using adult stem cells. including those derived from cord blood. As has been mentioned. those advances are substantiated by peer review studies confirming improvement in many types of cancers. cerebral palsy. sickle cell anemia. paralyzing injuries. autoimmune diseases. metabolic disorders. neural degenerative diseases and heart damage. This is consistent with the second principle of the Nuremberg Code. the directives for experimental human subject research. which are published at the Web site of NIH. The principle reads simply. "The experiment should .be as to yield fruitful results for the good of society. unprocurable by other methods or means of study. and not random and unnecessary in nature." Or as President Clintons National Bioethics Advisory Commission said. "In our judgment. the derivation of stem cells from embryos remaining following infertility treatments is justifiable only if no less morally problematic alternatives are available for advancing research." Well. we know they are. We talked about. before the House debating the bill earlier this year. the study published in Nature Biotechnology Journal. finding that amniotic fluids contain cells that can be cloned to produce stem cells to behave like embryonic stem cells. We had todays article referring to the Nature Journal. publishing a study. showing that normal skin cells can be reprogrammed into an embryonic state in mice. Instead of embracing this. we hear from the gentlewoman from Colorado. her words. shockingly. another sciehtific result reported yesterday. They seem to always come up whenever were debating the bill. They are because thats what science is doing. Vote this bill down.
Date: 2007-06-07
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Madam Speaker. its my pleasure at this time to yield as much time as_ he may consume to the ranking member of the Committee on Rules.
Date: 2007-06-07
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Madam Speaker. in a few minutes I will be asking for a "no" vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule to allow the House to consider a change to the Rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule. Now. by defeating the previous question. we wouldnt be derailing consideration of this important legislation today. But we would -be fixing an unfairness. rectifying an unfairness in the House Rules. And we believe very strongly in this. At this time. Madam Speaker. and I had an opportunity in the Rules Committee yesterday to point out to Mr. SHULER and Mr. SHAYS that. as Ive stated before. on the floor of this House today. I oppose the substance of the amendment that they brought before us. but I certainly support it and support. at this time. their right to be heard. Its unfortunate that the rule. the closed rule bringing the legislation to the floor today. has closed out all of the Members of the House. including
Date: 2007-06-07
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Madam Speaker. before closing. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut. who would like to make some other remarks.
Date: 2007-06-07
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Madam Speaker. I will be asking for a "no" vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule. Under the current rule. so long as the chairman or sponsor of a bill. joint resolution. conference report. or managers amendment includes either a list of earmarks contained in the. bill or report or a statement that there are no earmarks. no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress. However. under the rule as it functioned under the Republican majority in the 109th Congress. even if the point of order was not available on the bill. it was always available on the rule as a question of consideration. But because the Democratic majority Rules Committee specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order. they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks on the rule. This was most recently discovered on the question of the Murtha earmark on the Intelligence authorization bill. This amendment will restore the accountability and enforceability of the earmark rule to where it was at the end of the 109th Congress and provide Members with an opportunity to bring the question of earmarks before the House for a vote. Without these changes. the new earmark rule is nothing more than a fig leaf. Madam Speaker. I .ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material into the RECORD immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
Date: 2007-06-07
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Madam Speaker. at this time. while reiterating my support for the underlying legislation. which I think is worthy legislation and has .been thoroughly studied. I think it is most unfortunate that it has been brought forth with a totally closed rule. I ask my colleagues to join me in defeating the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule. Madam Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2007-06-12
Speaker: DAVID DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Tennessee

Mr. Speaker. I would like to yield as much time as he may consume to my good friend. the gentleman from North Carolina .
Date: 2007-06-12
Speaker: DAVID DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Tennessee

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of H.R. 2637. the Child Labor Protection Act of 2007. and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I appreciate the work of Chairman MILLER and Chairwoman WOOLSEY. as well as the gentleman from.California and the gentleman from South Carolina in crafting this legislation. There is no one more vulnerable in our workforce than its youngest members. While the employment of young workers is essential to instilling in them the work ethic and the value of a dollar. their collective safety must be the highest priority of our Nations employers and. indeed. the Nation as a whole. With this in mind. the measure before us would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act by increasing to $50.000 the civil penalty for any type of child labor violation that causes a death or serious injury of an employee under the age of 18. The current maximum civil penalty is $11.000. and it is low by any reasonable estimation. So this update is both prudent and necessary. Moreover. the legislation would allow the $50.000 penalty to be doubled up to a maximum of $100.000 for the willful and repeat violations that cause the death or serious injury of any child employed in violation of the Federal child labor standards. Once again. such an increase is both prudent and necessary. The measure before us is essential for the continuation of the Department of Labors ongoing focus on workplace safety for youth. and I commend President Bush for his work in this issue. Earlier this year. the Department submitted draft legislation similar to H.R. 2637. and before that. the Department proposed new labor standards rules to cover nonagricultural occupations for employment of 14- and 15yearolds. as well as occupations that place the wellbeing of employees under 18 years of age at risk. Mr. Speaker. we are making undeniable. bipartisan progress on updating our child labor laws. As the Bush administration continues its work. the Child Labor Protection Act would provide it with additional tools to address serious child labor violations. decrease repeat occurrences and strengthen the overall enforcement of critical child labor laws. Again. I thank my colleagues for their work on this measure and urge passage of this bill in the House. Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2007-06-12
Speaker: DAVID DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Tennessee

Mr. Speaker. I wbuld like to -yield as much time as he may consume to my good friend and fellow Tennessean. Mr. DUNCAN.
Date: 2007-06-12
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California .
Date: 2007-06-12
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself the balance of my time. and I thank all of my colleagues who have taken part in this debate. Mr. Speaker. I will be asking for a "no" vote on the previous question. so we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule. Under the current rule. so long as the chairman or sponsor of a bill. joint resoution. conference report or managers amendment includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or report. or a statement that there are no earmarks. no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress. However. under the rule .as it functioned under the Republican majority in the 109th Congress. even if the point of order was not available on the bill. it was always available on the rule as a question of consideration. But because the Democratic Rules Committee specifically exempts. earmarks from the waiver of all points of order. they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks on the rule. This was most recently discovered on the question of the Murtha earmark on the Intelligence authorization bill. This amendment will restore the accountability and enforceability of the earmark rule to where it was at the end of the 109th Congress to provide Members with an opportunity to bring the question of earmarks before the House for a vote. Without these changes. the new earmark rule. in effect. is nothing more than a fig leaf. Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
Date: 2007-06-12
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. on rollcall No. 451. on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 473. my vote did not register. Only after they closed the vote. was I told of that fact.
Date: 2007-06-12
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And Im sorry some thought that after we spent 120 days getting to a single bill on spending for our troops. and after we spent Monday voting on important things such as changing the U.S. Code to recommend that people fly their flag on Fathers Day. that . someone thinks allowing me to speak an extra minute issomehow offensive. Im sorry that that is the kind of courtesy that is missing.on this floor. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I would just like to conclude by saying this. If we truly want to get our house in order. Democrats and Republicans alike. we have .to understand that it is when were dealing precisely with those things that are most important that we find the courage to make sure that every dollar is spent wisely so thatwe can then move on to things such as waste. fraud and abuse. But unless we have the guts to do this. were never going to get our fiscal house in order. I rise in support of the gentlemans amendment. I support the idea of funding the Department of Homeland Security appropriately. but question whether a 13.6 percent increase over nonemergency appropriations in the previous fiscal year shows either that we have exercised that proper authority with respect to spending. and whether or not we have been discreet enough in our decisions. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Date: 2007-06-12
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I would feel compelled to support that type of approach. And. Mr. Chairman. if the gentleman is criticized at that time for having a cut through his amendment. I would suggest that those of us who want to lose weight should follow that kind of argument. Because we could say. instead of gaining 50 pounds. we only gained 30 pounds. and. therefore. we managed to lose weight.
Date: 2007-06-12
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. If the gentleman would yield. I will be proud to vote for your amendment to have a 7.1 percent increase. which. as I understand. is more than double the rate of inflation over the previous year.
Date: 2007-06-13
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. last night. we were informed over and over again by the other side of the aisle that we were supposed to follow whats become known as the Obey rule. Obey. Now. out west where I come from. thats pronounced "obey." .So I looked up in the dictionary to see what obey means. and its from middle English and old French. and it means to carry out or fulfill the command. order and instruction of. to carry out or comply with the command. or to behave obediently. Thats the problem. We have been told that we are supposed to obey. that is. behave obediently- at the whim of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and their staff. I was not elected to obey anybody. here. I was elected here to represent the people of the Third Congressional District of California. Thats what the debate was about last night. Thats what the debate will be about today. and thats what the debate will be about for the rest of the appropriations cycle.
Date: 2007-06-13
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. weve heard from the perspective of those who have. unfortunately. suffered tremendous loss in gun violence. Weve heard from those who are champions of the second amendment. Weve heard from the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I would like to bring the perspective of someone who was required to enforce the laws concerning guns in the State of California as Attorney General. Background checks in the State of California go through the California Department of Justice. We have. probably before the Federal law was passed. certain requirements or restrictions from those who ought not to have weapons that I think there is absolutely general agreement on. Under current law. you cannot do that if you have illegally entered the country. renounced your citizenship. been committed to a mental institution. or been legally declared mentally defective and a danger to others. if you have received a dishonorable discharge from the military. or illegally used drugs or are addicted to illegal drugs. I think virtually every American can agree that that makes sense. We agreed that that makes sense in California a long time ago. But the background check is only as good as the information in the. system. And while States such as mine can do a very good job with respect to their own records. a huge loophole exists if someone who has been declared mentally deficient in another State moves into your State and you dont have those records. If someone who has a disqualifying felony from . another State comes into your State. you dont have those records. And so this allows more accurate information to assist all the States in doing the job that their people have agreed ought to be done. Theres very little dispute on this. For many years. the National Rifle Association has said they supported accurate background checks. so *lofg as there was an ability for people to challenge them if. in fact. theyre improperly in those records. And that is in current legislation. strengthened in this legislation. Some of the States have had difficulty with respect to their funding. This assists in that regard. It seems to me. this is a responsible way of responding to a serious problem. It is one which is not driven by the extremes. It is not driven by emotion. It is driven by conscious effort to try and find a reasonable response to a continuing problem. I support this wholeheartedly. I congratulate those on both sides who have done such a good job of working. to make sure that this bill came to the floor. and that it was not in some way sidetracked by extraneous arguments. And so I congratulate the authors. I congratulate the members of the committee leadership. and I urge unanimous support of this bill.
Date: 2007-06-13
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. it is my pleasure snow to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Austin. Texas. the left-. hander .
Date: 2007-06-13
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman. when I talk to my local sheriffs back home. one of whom actually burned out the battery on my cell phone. what they want to do is do what people expect -them to do. and that is help the very overtaxed. no pun intended. ICE employees who are out there trying to apprehend the criminals. the criminal illegal aliens. In Florida. we were able to train 35 State and local law enforcement people under this program. under the 287(g) program. It is a good program. and. believe me. it is very much wanted by many local sheriffs. sheriffs who also get elected like we do and who get frustrated when ICE is unable to come to the jail with the frequency that they need to. who are frustrated because the citizens want illegals who have criminal records. they want them off the streets. off theirlawns. and they want to once again be able to reclaim their communities. very often. from a lot of illegal activity.. The 13 jurisdictions that use the 287(g) program are very happy with it. We need to adequately fund it. and I commend my colleague from Virginia for introducing this amendment. It is a good amendment and one that I think the American people certainly would want to have wellfunded because of its efficacy. Again. I commend the gentlewoman.
Date: 2007-06-14
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. the debate over the last 2 days has been described in many different ways. I would like to describe it as a tribute to the gentleman from Arizona . I have referred to him in the press as Don Quixote with couth. referring to the fact that in the past he has stood there as a solitary figure trying to bring sense to this place when were dealing with earmarks. President Nixon once said looking at certain. figures about population that we are all now Malthusian. He was proven wrong. I think I can say without contradiction. after the debate on the floor and resolution of the dispute weve had and the seriousness with which were about now to undertake the issue of earmarks. we are now all Flakes.
Date: 2007-06-14
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Speaker. for the last 2 days. Ive sat on the floor waiting to introduce and have debated an amendment that I have. And what that amendment does is that amnendment7 provides an additional $89 million to go toward building the border fence. That fence is to keep out those people who may be criminals. who may be terrorists. who America was promised that we would build the fence. What has all of the delay been? Let me tell you what the delay has been. The delay has been about your tax dollars. Ive got a dollar bill here in a clear transparent folder. Its about transparency of earmarks. Its about the fact that we should be voting on bills where we know what that earmark is. what those earmarks are. regardless. Now. heres the way it was last year when we voted on appropriations bills. We knew where those earmarks were. We knew who introduced them. This is what it is this year. It is a hidden appropriation pool that we will not know who this moneys going to.
Date: 2007-06-14
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee. Mr. Chairman. it is not just the border States that are affected by illegal immigrants who come into our country. They are not all coming here for jobs. folks. and I think we are very naive if we believe that. Some are coming here to form terrorist cells. And a fence may not be the perfect answer. but it is the answer that this Congress voted on last year.