macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2010-03-12
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Here is my concern. There are those who say these bills are justified under the expansive reading of the commerce clause. and it is true in the past the Supreme Court has found a rather expansive view of the commerce clause. But if one suggests that ones own health and the decision on how one provides for ones own health is. in fact. a part of interstate commerce. which then grants the authority to the Federal Government to act. then the question I would ask is: What is left that is not covered by Federal authority? What part of your life is not covered by the Federal authority? In other words. if we can do this for the purpose. admittedly a good purpose. of ensuring that people have health care in this country. but if we can extend the reach of the Federal Government in this way. would it be out of the realm of possibility that one could argue it would be constitutional for the Federal Government to say. in light of the impact of obesity on certain health conditions. and in light of the fact that when one develops those health conditions one has a call on medical care in this country. and that impacts all of us. because that is the argument that is being made. would it not then be logical that we. on the Federal level. could mandate that you must belong to a federally approved fitness program? Is that so much of a reach? Wouldnt that be less of an interference in ones life than to mandate precisely how one has to prepare for ones own health and pay for ones own health. and then dictate exactly what coverage one might have. even though you might not want to have that particular coverage? So I think it goes beyond just the health care question. It goes to the questionand I have had this discussion in my town hall meetings as recently as this last Monday. where I had 250 people in Rancho Cordova. It goes to the question of what is the proper relationship between the individual and their Federal Government. and the greatness of our Founding Fathers was to say that would be a limited relationship. that is. the Federal Governments call on us. because we recognize that government did not extend rights to us. Those rights were Godgiven rights. And we the peoplethose are the words that are found in the Constitution. We the people formed a United States of America. but we decided what authority we would give that government. and they should not go beyond that.
Date: 2010-03-12
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I think the gentleman from Georgia made a point about a summary of a summary being larger than the original summary. and were talking about a 2.000page bill at least in both the House and the Senate. which will then spawn thousands. tens of thousands. of pages of regulations which will then be interpreted by thousands of people employed by the Federal Government. which will then finally get to you and your doctor. And I think that is one of the problems that we have. I would just cite the Speaker of the House who recently said in a press conference: We must pass the bill so we can find out what is in it. Now. I dont make that stuff up. It almost sounds like a comedy routine from "Saturday Night Live." But that was essentially the statement: We must pass the bill to find out what was in it. I used to think that good legislation was you knew what was in it before you voted on it. and if you had problems with it. you didnt vote on it until you fixed the problems. and you didnt say. well. we know we have problems in the bill. but we are going to reconcile those problems later on. And particularly when "reconcile" is a special term of art in the United States Senate. and it allows you to fix some things but not others. and those that you cannot fix in the arcane notion of the reconciliation process in the Senate. you will then have to take to the floor of the House. and that will be then subject to the possibility of filibuster. which means essentially you will have to get 60 votes to pass it. So I would ask the gentleman on an issue that is of immense importance to the American people. as they have expressed at town hall meetings. in polling and everything else. there has been a 30plusyear consensus in this Congress and in this country about the limits of Federal funding for the procedure called abortion. That law. that line of laws. has been encapsulated in what was known as the Stupak amendment in the House of Representatives. We know that the Stupak amendment is not in the Senate bill. There is another provision which Mr. STUPAK and others have said is insufficient to maintain the current law. therefore meaning that it will establish a new law allowing Federal funding of abortions for procedures that have not been allowed that is paid for by the taxpayers for over 30 years. Is the gentleman aware of whether the history of the voting pattern in the Senate would lead one to conclude that there are 60 votes for the Stupak amendment in the Senate?
Date: 2010-03-12
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. If you have an animal control officer come to your house and say that your dog or cat hasnt been neutered or spayed. and you say. well. wait a second. Im going to let my dog or cat out for the next month. but I will get him fixed. do you think the animal control officer would trust you?
Date: 2010-03-12
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Is the gentleman aware of whether or not the language that articulates the Stupak amendment or the language that would articulate something close to the Stupak amendment would be allowed under the tight controls of reconciliation?
Date: 2010-03-12
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. In other words. if one were to preserve the Stupak amendment. it would be to take the House bill over to the Senate. have the Senate accept the House bill. and then perhaps try and reconcile it later on if you were going to preserve the intent of the Stupak amendment and thereby preserve 30 years or 35 years of the consensus of this Congress and the consensus of the courts and the consensus of the American people.
Date: 2010-03-12
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. If I might ask the gentleman to yield again. the point were making is this has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade. This has nothing to do with a womans right to choose. It has to do with the question of whether Federal taxpayers are required to pay for the procedures. and there has been a consensus in this country with a limitation on federally funded abortions except for the life of the mother. rape and incest. There have been those kinds of limitations on that. And this changes that. changes the consensus that has existed for 30some years. Again. if you wanted to protect that consensus that was repeated on this floor in the nature of the Stupak amendment. you would take that up in the Senate and you would pass that. Now. why are they not doing it? We hear they are not doing it because they couldnt pass it in the Senate.
Date: 2010-03-12
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. So we are supposed to believe that if they cant pass the Stupak amendment in the Senate. we should pass the Senate bill here because then there is a promise that they will pass a virtual Stupak amendment with a requirement of 60 votes.
Date: 2010-03-12
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. So people should understand the conundrum we are in. not of our own making. but precisely because of the bill that was brought to this floor and the bill that was brought to the Senate. And those are basically the two options that are out there. And the question is. How can you get a majority vote in either body while finessing that issue? I would suggest you cannot do that if. in fact. that issue is as important to people as they stated it was during the consideration of the bill both in the House and the Senate. And of course that goes far beyond the question we had before. which is. What about the constitutionality of the underlying principle that we will now mandate that you must purchase a product. in this case. a health care policy. or if you do not. you will find yourself in illegal status in the United States? We are not talking about you having entered the United States illegally. We are not talking about you having overstayed your visa. We are not talking about you committing some fraud on the United States to come here. We are talking about you already being an American citizen. someone with legal status in the United States. and now you are going to be rendered illegal because you will not purchase a product imposed by the Federal Government for the first time in our Nations history.
Date: 2010-03-12
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I think a very. very basic question is this. There is a notion of healthy skepticism within our government and our view of government. We grow up with that. That is part and parcel of the Constitution. But if you move from healthy skepticism to destructive. not skepticism. but cynicism. then you have really ruptured the relationship between the American people and their government. And if we were to ignore the voices of the American people as they have been articulated in town hall after town hall after town hall throughout this country. not just in AugustI had my last town hall meeting this Monday. 250 people in one of my communities. overwhelming opposition not to some changes in health carethey are not arguing for the status quothey are arguing against these two visions of health care reform. And they ask me. they beg me to bring a message here from them directly: scrap what youre doing. start over. give us the right medicine. not the wrong medicine.
Date: 2010-03-16
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Madam Speaker. by now. we all know the many flaws with the health care bill that is going to be rammed through this House. and there certainly are many. It cuts Medicare by onehalf trillion dollars. It raises taxes. jeopardizes patient access to health care. and puts an unelected bureaucrat. or many bureaucrats. in charge of your health care. I want to tell a brief story about something that happened to me this weekend. I was in a local drugstore with a friend of mine waiting for a prescription. and a woman came up to me and she said. Are you GINNY BROWNWAITE? And I said. Yes. maam. And she said. I want to talk to you about the health care bill. She proceeded to tell me. she said. I am about to lose my job. which means I will lose my health care. And I thought I knew what she was next going to say. and she totally shocked me. She pointed to her daughter. who she told me was 9 years old. and she said. But I dont want you to vote for that bill. Congresswoman. because I dont want this child and her children paying for an outofcontrol health care system in America. I believe that she really speaks the way most Americans believe.
Date: 2010-03-16
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Wake up. America. The Speaker is trying to pass the health care bill without letting America see it first. In fact. she said. "I have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it." She is also shooting for a voteless passage. and that is unconstitutional. Well. I can tell my Democrat colleagues what is in it. The health care bill is littered full of sweetheart deals. one after another. from the Louisiana purchase to the Cornhusker kickback. What is another term for hustling votes? Buying them. The American people are fed up with secret backroom deals in smokefilled rooms. It is no wonder all Americans are clear in their opposition to what they have seen. read. and heard on health care. Bring the real Senate bill to the floor for an honest upordown vote. These sneaky shenanigans defy common sense. and the American people want. need. and deserve better.
Date: 2010-03-16
Speaker: MARIO DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Madam Speaker. in 2017. Medicare goes insolvent. It goes broke in 2017. So do the Democrats have a plan to reform and save Medicare? No. The Democrats plan actually raids onehalf trillion dollars from Medicare to create a massive new governmentcontrolled health care program. So even though the Speaker is writing this bill behind closed doors in secret. Madam Speaker. the American people. particularly senior citizens. are not being fooled. They oppose this massive bill that will nationalize health care and that will raid onehalf trillion dollars from Medicare. They oppose it. and so should we.
Date: 2010-03-16
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Speaker. oftentimes on this floor this document becomes the inconvenient truth. Its called the Constitution of the United States. It tells us what we can and what we cannot do. Not too many years ago. the House of Representatives and the United States Senate decided they would pass something called the line item veto. Sounded like a great idea. The only problem? Its unconstitutional. The court at that time said the Constitution makes it very clear. The House has to pass a certain text. the Senate has to pass the exact same text. the President has to review it and then sign the same text. You cant deem a law to be a law. The dictionary is over here. Deem doesnt mean it is. It means that its not. It may be close. Well pretend it is. Thats not what the Constitution says. The court has told us it has to be the exact text. If you change one paragraph. it is unconstitutional. They want us to adopt a rule that includes the bill but a lot of other language. Its not the same text. Its unconstitutional. The inconvenient truth is we have to follow the law. and this is the supreme law of the land.
Date: 2010-03-16
Speaker: TIM MURPHY (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Pennsylvania

I have sent or received nearly 750.000 letters and emails from my office and have held 225 constituent town hall meetings. I have a pretty good idea why my constituents are upset about this health care bill. They were promised that it wouldnt tax health care. but it does. They were promised that it wouldnt mandate health care. but it does. They were promised it wouldnt raise taxes on people with incomes less than $250.000. but it does. You can only pay for this by doing some manipulation of taking $52 billion from Social Security and $72 billion from longterm health care. And it doesnt pay doctors to the tune of $371 billion. It doesnt allow doctors to volunteer at community health centers. It doesnt reduce infection rates at hospitals. And it doesnt deal with the $700 billion of waste in health care that weve got to address. You dont reform health care by demonizing insurance companies. drug companies and doctors. And Americans are saying weve got to reform health care. not just continue to pass bills that are facades to real health reform. And thats why theyre mad as hell.
Date: 2010-03-17
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. when you practice law. there is an old expression that goes something like this: If you have the facts. argue the facts. if you have the law. argue the law. if you have neither. attack your opponent. That appears to be whats happening. There are those of us who have argued that the process that we are engaged inthat is that we will not vote on the Senate bill but we will kind of vote on the Senate bill. we will deem it passedis unconstitutional. And in response to that. the Speaker of the House has said this: I think its ridiculous and the people who are telling you its unconstitutional know better. and you should be very outraged that people who know better would say things like that. They know when they talk theyre not telling the truth. I resent being called a liar by the Speaker of the House. I resent the fact because there are constitutional scholars who have said this is unconstitutional. Now. I have only argued one case before the Supreme Courtwhich I won on behalf of the People of the State of Californiaso I am not considered one of the great practitioners before the Supreme Court. but we have spoken to one of them who will work with us in bringing this case to the Supreme Court if we try this outrage against the American people. Lets stick to the facts. stick to the law. and stop attacking people personally.
Date: 2010-03-17
Speaker: BONO MACK (republican)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. I rise today to honor the memory and legacy of a dear friend and selfless public leader. Serving one of our States fastest growing regions. Riverside County Supervisor Roy Wilson passed away in August after many years of service to our community. I consider it a great privilege to honor this remarkable and humble man by naming a post office located in Supervisor Wilsons home town of Palm Desert. CA. as the Roy Wilson Post Office. Some of my colleagues representing nearby Districts in southern California may remember Roy Wilson and his many years of outstanding work on behalf of residents of our region. His integrity and steady leadership was invaluable and he has been missed by all who knew and loved him. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with his loving wife. Aurora. and the rest of his family. Roy Wilson represented the 4th District of Riverside County for 15 years. following 17 years of service on the Palm Desert City Council. Roy worked on many issues important to members of our community such as improving air quality. providing valuable education. and reducing spending to help strengthen the countys budget. For many years. Roy Wilson taught at our local community college. College of the Desert. in Palm Desert. California. This campus has for decades been an important educational resource to local residents wishing to pursue higher education. Roy was instrumental in helping the campus grow and excel. In addition. Roy Wilson worked to help protect the environment in our region through his service of 22 years on the governing board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Our desert community attracts residents and visitors through its natural beauty. hiking trails and mountainous views. Through Roy Wilsons leadership. he truly helped preserve the health and wellbeing of our unique environment. In recent years. as our County faced significant financial challenges. Roy moved to rein in spending in order to help improve the budgetdifficult. but necessary in these financially troubling times. The many capacities in which Roy worked to the betterment of our community are clear. but his humble leadership is what truly made him so unique and effective. Roy was able to engage in both sides of any discussion and truly earned the trust and respect of many local residents and leaders. As a cherished member of our community. where many residents called him a friend and neighbor. this postal naming would be a special tribute to the late Supervisor Roy Wilson. I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring this exceptional man and helping me and residents living in our community honor his life and legacy. Id like to thank Subcommittee Chairman LYNCH and Ranking Member CHAFFETZ for their help in moving this bill forward.
Date: 2010-03-18
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

You know. even while the President tours the country saying its time for an upordown vote on health care. the Speaker is attempting to bypass a vote altogether. As Newt Gingrich said. This Congress has gone from voting on bills without reading them to passing bills without voting on them. That is unconscionable and unconstitutional. Its time for an open and honest vote on health care. Lets vote on how the bill cuts Medicare. lets vote on how the bill actually hikes health costs. Lets vote on how the bill uses taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. But the Speaker cant do that. Shes faced with the unfortunate inconvenience that some of her Members actually want to listen to their constituents and vote "no." So now she intends to muscle through health care reform without an actual vote. That is just wrong. I will say it again: Congress has gone from voting on bills without reading them to passing bills without voting on them. America deserves better.
Date: 2010-03-18
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. it occurs to me that one of the strangest things that happens on this floor is when you bring the gavel down and say. The time has expired. and then people keep on talking and then turn to you and they say. I yield back the balance of my time. That is sort of a metaphor for the problem here in Congress. When we announce a tax cut. we say we are giving something back to you as if we had the call on your money in the first instance. Its just one of the fictions we deal with. such as the fiction that this bill isnt going to cost us any money. or the fiction that the American people dont know whats in the bill. or the fiction that the American people will love it once we pass it. Lets remember August. It did occur. Its something that is a manifestation of the American people and how they feel. Lets not ignore the American people. Lets be the House of Representatives.
Date: 2010-03-19
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Madam Speaker. I would like to thank my good friend. the gentleman from Colorado . for the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker. I would like to take a minute to contrast what the majority is doing today with what it is expected to do this weekend. Today. the majority has brought forth a rule to provide 1 hour of debate for consideration of H.R. 3644. the Ocean. Coastal. and Watershed Education Act. and another hour of debate for H.R. 1612. the Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2009. That is a total of 2 hours of debate on bills that would direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to establish education and watershed programs to advance environmental literacy. and expand the authorization to provide servicelearning opportunities on public lands and train public land managers. I thank my good friend for thoroughly detailing and covering what is in those bills. If the majority proceeds as expected later this weekend. Madam Speaker. the House will prohibit. other than in the rule. all time to debate the Senate health care bill and will send it to the President for his signature. So that bill. the Senate health care bill. would become law even though the House of Representatives would never consider it. never debate the bill. The House. in fact. has never even held a committee meeting on the Senate health care bill. On Sunday. it is expected that the majority will deem the bill passed. and in a few days it would be law. the signature issue of this President and this congressional majority. You would think. Madam Speaker. that they would proudly embrace their signature accomplishment. You would think that they would welcome debate on it. But they do not. because they know that the Senate bill is fatally flawed. The American people deserve a full and complete debate in the House on the Senate health care bill. but they wont get it. Again. lets juxtapose that reality with todays actions. Today. 2 hours of debate on two noncontroversial bills that cost $300 million and absolutely no debate. no committee hearings on a bill that costs nearly $1 trillion. covers onesixth of our economy. and will affect every single American. That is unfair and inappropriate. Last year. the majority rushed through a 300page amendment at 3 in the morning that no one was able to read on capandtrade. At that time. the American people rightly stood up and demanded that Congress read the bill. After this weekends action. the people will demand that Congress not only read bills. but that we debate and vote on bills. It would seem like common sense. Madam Speaker. But with this majority. it often seems as though common sense is the least common of the senses. I reserve the balance of my time.