macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2010-02-22
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Speaker. I. as many of my colleagues. have just returned from my district. During that time. I had two town hall meetings and numerous individual meetings with members of my constituency. and one thing was abundantly clear. On the subject of health care. overwhelmingly they told me to bring this message back to Washington. D.C.: Stop what youre doing. scrap the House bill. scrap the Senate bill and start over. Interestingly enough. national polls show thats the national sentiment. By about 61 or 62 to 28. at least. the American people are telling us. Back off. scrap what youve done. start over again. Theyre not asking for the status quo but theyre asking for incremental approaches. and many of the things that Republicans have talked about are what the people are asking for. Yet today. I was very disappointed to see the President has decided to ignore the American people. His message to the American people at least coming out from the White House today is: Forget what you say. Youre not smart enough to figure this out. We know better. Were going to forge ahead. Madam Speaker. lets listen to the American people.
Date: 2010-02-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. and to the Republic for which it stands. one nation under God. indivisible. with liberty and justice for all.
Date: 2010-02-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I returned from my district here just a couple of days ago after hearing from my constituents at several town hall meetings. One of the things they made absolutely crystal clear was they wanted us to start over on health care. They werent arguing for the status quo. They are arguing for a new start. So what do we have on Thursday? The President inviting Members from both Houses. both Democrat and Republican. for what? For what? A session in which it appears that the ground rules are going to be we are going to start with the House and the Senate bills. I dont know. I am proud to be in this House. in part because of my love of the Constitution. I look at the Constitution. and it says we have three different branches of government and we are responsible for legislation. I dont see where there is a monarchy. where you are supposed to go and have an audience with the monarch surrounded by his court jesters.
Date: 2010-02-23
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

I rise today to inform my colleagues that a great Cuban hero. Orlando Zapata Tamayo. who is a prisoner of conscience in the gulag of the Castro brothers. is in critical condition and near death. Fortytwo years old. Orlando Zapata has been active in the Cuban prodemocracy movement for many years. Already a political prisoner in 2003. he was released by Castro for 14 days before being imprisoned once again and sentenced to 25 years in the gulag. in A colleague and partner in the struggle for freedom of Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet. Orlando Zapata personifies the best of mankind. And the fact that he is near death at this moment in the Castros gulag points to the profoundly criminal nature of that grotesque totalitarian criminal regime. His condition and fate are the Castro brothers doing. If he dies. his blood will be on Castros hands.
Date: 2010-02-23
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. you know. small businesses want. need. and deserve policies that will encourage. not punish economic growth. And yet. due to the Democrats taxandspend agenda. job creators in my district are either cutting their payrolls or holding back on hiring. Thats why we have a record 16 million Americans unemployed. Theres a better way forward. and that way forward is with progrowth. small business tax cuts that will help get this economy moving again. Mr. Speaker. small business owners know how to run their company better than a Washington bureaucrat. Its time for the government to get out of the business of running small business.
Date: 2010-02-23
Speaker: TIM MURPHY (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Pennsylvania

Thank you. Ranking Member ILEANA RosLEHTINEN. for this opportunity to speak about this important issue of one of Americas proud moments of how it helps when the world has need. On January 12 of this year. we were shocked and saddened by the devastating earthquake in Haiti. More than 230.000 Haitians are dead. perhaps even more we will find. hundreds of thousands injured. a million left homeless. The world responded immediately with food. donations. and rescue workers. but among the first to respond were our military. particularly the crew of the USNS Comfort. This 894footlong floating Naval hospital set sail from Baltimore Harbor soon after the earthquake. Members of the ships crew. most of whom hailed from the Navys hospitals in Maryland and Virginia. were soon on board and underway. By the 17th of January. the Comfort was making full speed towards PortauPrince. Before its arrival. the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier provided immediate relief to injured Haitians. Today. the 1.200person Comfort crew. made up of over 550 civilian and uniformed doctors. nurses. and others. is providing the best possible care under very challenging circumstances. With limited supplies but limitless compassion and skill. surgeons and nurses and a host of other specialties. obstetricians. pharmacists. pediatricians. and Navy personnel from the medical corps. the medical service corps. nursing corps and so many others were there to treat Haitians who came on board with wounds. fractures. and infections. The crews superb performance is a testament to our Navy and our Marines who are confronting these very. very difficult challenges. Even before the devastating earthquake of January 12 that took so many lives. Haiti was a country enduring many difficult problems. Nearly fourfifths of its people live in absolute poverty. It has less than 50 hospitals. some of which are only staffed by a pair of nurses and medical interns. The country has fewer than three physicians for every 10.000 people. By comparison. our country has nearly 100 doctors for every 10.000 people. The absence of a medical infrastructure made treating Haitians even more challenging. where doctors in the pediatric ward estimated that a fifth of the children in their care had untreated. and in many cases previously undiagnosed. medical conditions.
Date: 2010-02-23
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Madam Speaker. I rise today in support of Billys Law. I want to thank the many tireless advocates of missing children everywhere. and I certainly want to commend Representative MURPHY for sponsoring this very important piece of legislation. Every day thousands of people are reported missing. The good news is that many of them are quickly located by our heroes in the local law enforcement agencies. What happens to those who are not found in the first few very critical days after theyre reported missing? In the past. the names were noted in files of local police agencies. but without any leads. investigators were left with few options and their names lingered on this list. Madam Speaker. in 2005. a group of people that included Federal. State. and local law enforcement agencies. medical examiners. forensic scientists. and other experts gathered in Philadelphia to discuss ways to solve missing persons cases. The National Missing and Unidentified Persons System is a result of that effort. Local and State law enforcement agencies need a central database to which they can turn. and that is why I believe NamUs is so important. NamUs has also launched a DNA initiative. which is an effort to make sure we are using DNA technology in every way possible to track down missing persons. Billys Law provides grants to local law enforcement agencies to improve their access to DNA technology and to NamUs. In my district. Milton and Evelyn Nerenberg have spent years trying to find out what happened to their missing daughter. Audrey. Frustrated that their daughter. too. remains missing. the Nerenbergs came to me for help. They were concerned that the Federal Government was not doing enough to make sure that information gathered in central Florida. for example. where they lived. was being shared with the right people in other parts of the country. They also wanted to make sure that the DNA technology be made available to law enforcement agencies throughout our Nation as well as in Florida. Billys Law will make it happen. It is very similar to the legislation I previously introduced and that was named after Audrey Nerenberg. Important progress has been made in the past 5 years. but more must be done. Forty thousand missing persons. including Audrey Nerenberg from my district. their families will certainly benefit from this legislation. I have worked in previous Congresses to improve the Federal Governments ability to locate missing persons. and as a cosponsor. I am very pleased to see Billys Law come to the floor. and I will be proud to vote in favor of its passage. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.
Date: 2010-02-24
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. instead of inviting Republicans to a conference table with a blank sheet of paper. the Presidents decided to introduce the same trilliondollar Washington takeover of health care the public has already rejected. In Texas. we call that paying for the same real estate twice. and the American people arent buying it. They have been trying to tell the President in every way possible to stop the backroom decisions and secret deals. This weeks socalled "bipartisan" summit is just more of the same. Instead of pressing the reset button. the Presidents hosting a photo op. Using the illusion of bipartisanship as a political tool is wrong. Its not fooling anyone. If the President and Democrat leadership are serious about coming together on health care reform. then lets get out the of corral and start from scratch.
Date: 2010-02-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Thats the most interesting thing. You did change it. You changed the bill from the bill that came out of committee. So dont tell me you didnt want it changed. You did change it. Thats the whole point were making. The bill that we produced out of committee on a bipartisan basis that was called a clarifying amendment was taken out. So youre the folks that changed it. I didnt change it. My God. is this 1984 doublespeak around this place? I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Date: 2010-02-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Could I just ask my friend from California. isnt it true that if there was collusion utilizing this information. that would still be prosecutable under the amendment that I suggest because it is prosecutable at the present time under State action theory and has been pursued by various States?
Date: 2010-02-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Well. I know we have had people on this floor who say they have no expertise but they say this amendment does certain things. I did spend 8 years as the Attorney General of California. We had the most active antitrust public law office in the country other than the U.S. Justice Department. I might just say. this is the first time I have ever heard that Jack Brooks was presenting legislation on the floor of the House or in Judiciary that was to protect insurance companies or allow collusion. The language I used is taken from the Jack Brooks bill. The language I use is specifically the language that was adopted on a bipartisan basis and said by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee was an excellent clarifying amendment.
Date: 2010-02-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. The fact of the matter is that under the law under this bill. the State action still applies. State action principles still apply. States can still do what they will. including what the gentleman talked about before. So this is a red herring. This is so silly that you would take something that got bipartisan support. unless youre suddenly suggesting that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has a secret plan to somehow allow the insurance companies to gouge people and that Jack Brooks had that secret plan. This is total nonsense. to bring a bill to the floor and take out an essential element from committee and then suggest. when you want to put it back in committee for revision. youre trying to protect somebody.
Date: 2010-02-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I thank the gentleman. It is better if they have actual data upon which to make their decisions. And heres the rub: As was mentioned by the gentleman from Wisconsin. it is the small companies which depend on the availability of information the most. Smaller companies simply do not have a sufficiently large volume of information to price their products efficiently. So its for this reason that it is of the utmost importance that insurers have the ability to share historical data. Now. am I just saying this? No. In this record. a Congressional Research Service report raises the possibility that were such data not available to small insurance companies. we might see the ironic outcome of further concentration in the insurance industry. Again. not my conclusion. the conclusion of the Congressional Research report done most recently. So. yesterday I did approach the Rules Committee to ask my amendment. the Brooks amendment. as I call it. be restored to the health insurance antitrust bill. And even though it was approved unanimously by my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee. my request was inexplicably rejected by the Rules Committee. This is not the way. I would say. Madam Speaker. that this body should do business. Lets respect the integrity of the institution and the work that has been done in the duly established committee process. I would hope that when this part of the recommittal motion is discussed. well discuss it in light of the history of this billthe language taken from the Jack Brooks bill. the language taken from the majoritys health care bill passed just this year.
Date: 2010-02-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Thank you. Since the gentleman refused to yield when I asked him to. despite the fact he was using my name and attributing motivations to me that are questionable under the rules of the House. I might say this. The gentleman is absolutely incorrect in his analysis. The report said that it would harm the small insurance companies if they were not able to get this historical data. number one. Number two. the gentleman conflates two completely different things: one is historical data and the other is trending data. And they are two different things. My amendment does nothing about allowing insurance companies to work together and compare trending data. which is data going forward. despite the fact that some in the insurance industry wish that is the case. The dirty little secret is that some in the insurance industry dont want to have my amendment. they want it to be silent so that in addition to historical data. they can also have trending data. But the gentleman hasnt looked at the data in that way. hasnt examined or. I presume the gentleman would not have examined the reports to know the difference that was in that and my specific decision not to include trending data in my amendment. Secondly. I find it interesting that the gentleman suggests that I am trying to do something other than what I say that I am doing. This is an interesting argument made on this floor. that if you disagree with someone you suggest that what they say cant possibly be true. The fact of the matter is I have quoted outside reports to support my position. number one. The fact of the matter is I have used the language from the Jack Brooks legislation. I have used language from the gentlemans partys health care bill. and I have used the language that was adopted on a bipartisan basis in Judiciary Committee unanimously.
Date: 2010-02-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Perhaps the gentleman is suggesting that all the Members on his side of the aisle who supported this amendment share in his description of the motivation of those of us who have presented it. I thought maybe we were above that. I thought maybe we were engaged in civil discourse here. But rather. if the gentleman or any gentleman wishes to talk about the motivations of others. I will tell you any idea about bipartisanship is lost in this House. The suggestion that all you have to do is shout louder than somebody else and accuse them of motivations other than what they articulated is just absolute nonsense. The fact of the matter is. properly done. the sharing of historical data is not anticompetitive. The fact of the matter is the underlying bill. with my amendment. would still allow actions taken by the Justice Department and the various States Attorney General if there was bid rigging. if there was price setting. if there was determination before the hand of which markets you would act in and which markets you would not act in. And so this is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. essentially. I have never seen such an attack on an amendment that was adopted on a bipartisan basis in the committee. Now. I realize it is only the committee of jurisdiction that has expertise in this area. I understand that those of us who have done antitrust law ought not to be listened to because those who have said on this floor that they have no expertise in this and they dont understand it. therefore. they dont want to debate it. should have the upper hand in the Rules Committee. But frankly. I will say once again at some point in time you have to accept yes for an answer. I support the bill. I am trying to help the bill. I am trying to get it back to where it was when Jack Brooks introduced it. And in response to that. rather than saying hurray for bipartisanship. I hear from other people. well. we got to question your motivations. Hardly a high point in this Chamber.
Date: 2010-02-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Speaker. once again I know I run the risk of trying to introduce some expertise into this debate. For that. I apologize. But the American Bar Association appeared before the subcommittee of Judiciary dealing with the underlying bill. or the bill that was presented before our committee. and in there. they voice support. as they have for decades. for removal of the McCarranFerguson antitrust exemption for the health care insurance industry. However. they said. as point number one of the five major points they made. insurers should be authorized to cooperate in the collection and dissemination of past lossexperience data so long as these activities do not unreasonably restrain competition. but insurers should not be authorized to cooperate in the construction of advisory rates or the projection of loss experience in the future in such a manner as to interfere with competitive pricing. That second part deals with trending data. I do not allow that under my amendment. And as I presented my effort to have my amendment considered in the Rules Committee. I was told by the representative of the American Bar Association. they did support my position. they supported my amendment. and they supported the arguments that I made before the committee. Now. maybe theyre wrong because they have some expertise in this area. but perhaps this is one time we might look to them. The ABA has not been known as a Republican. conservative. proinsurance company operation. Last time I looked. they have a major element of the bar association thats involved with antitrust law.
Date: 2010-02-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. So I would just hope that people would understand. as important as this bill is. that we should be at least listening to the American people. who have said number one on their issue list in dealing with this problem. as they see it. as they understand it. as they are affected by it. is the reform of the medical malpractice litigation system as it currently exists. So it is somewhat disappointing that we dont have that even on the horizon. I think the gentleman. the ranking member on the committee. would agree we havent seen anything on this subject that has been scheduled for our committee. While I support this legislationand let me repeat thatI support this legislation. I think it is good legislation. I think it may have a slightly bigger impact than. maybe. my ranking member thinks it will have. although not as large an impact as suggested by the other side. I would hope that the other side would look with open eyes and would listen with open ears to our motion to recommit because I think it will make a better bill. will clear up some definitions that are not defined in this bill and will help us move in the right direction.
Date: 2010-02-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I would like to refer to that part of the motion to recommit that deals with the amendment that I offered and that was contained in the bill that passed out of the Judiciary Committee. It simply allows historical data to be utilized by insurance companies large and small. This is something that is requested by the small insurance companies. this is something supported by the American Bar Association. Their representative who testified before our subcommittee on behalf of or in support of the underlying legislation supported this amendment so that in fact small insurers would not be disadvantaged. Lets get this right. There are some who have told me on the other side that. well. we dont need this because it will be allowed by the U.S. Justice Department or by the courts. We ought not to wait for that. We ought to give some real solid certainty to insurance companies. particularly the small insurance carriers. So if we wish to permit the collection of historical data. lets make it clear what we intend. Just because we havent brought forward on this floor some answer to the medical malpractice litigation issue is no reason for us to commit legislative malpractice here. We ought to do our job. We ought to not pass it on. Now. there are a few people who dont think that historical data should even be allowed. If that is the way they feel. I understand it. Most Members I have spoken to believe it ought to be allowed. They understand the absolute essence of it in terms of the continued existence of small insurers across the country. Lets get it right. I have the language virtually the same that was contained in the majoritys health care bill that passed just a couple of months ago. It is the same as contained in the bipartisan bill that came out of our committee. And most importantly. it is the same language contained in the various bills presented to this House by the late great Jack Brooks. chairman at that time of the House Judiciary Committee. about whom Members on the other side have waxed eloquently. And in tribute to him. I would hope they would support the gentlemans motion to recommit that contains my amendment.
Date: 2010-02-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Reserving the right to object. has the Chair ruled as to whether the gentlemans words are inappropriate under the rules of the House and the precedents of the House?
Date: 2010-02-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask unanimous consent if I might revise my remarks. I referred to Jack Brooks as the late great. I didnt mean to suggest that he is no longer with us. He is great but he is not late.