macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2011-03-17
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am. as many are. going home hopefully this afternoon and will have town halls when Im home. and maybe I will ask the question at my town halls: Do you believe that funding NPR is of the same importance or moment as funding our troops in the war zone? I believe that I will have an overwhelming response by the people of my district who suggest what we are doing with this rule is to allow us to deal with those kinds of issues. setting priorities that they sent us to Washington to do. So I again thank the gentleman for his time. I thank the gentlelady for explicating the difference between the two parties approaches on this and understanding the sense of priorities that either exist or dont exist on this floor. For me. I will easily say that even though it may be a tough decision. I would vote to take Federal funding away from NPR in order to try to balance our books in the future and do what is necessary to defend this country and those other things that are contained in the Constitution.
Date: 2011-03-29
Speaker: AUSTIN SCOTT (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Georgia

Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen. I rise today to speak about H.R. 872. I was pleased to see this resolution pass the Agriculture Committee with a bipartisan vote. Not one single objection. I want you to think about that. Not one objection from a Democrat or a Republican in the Agriculture Committee. It somewhat baffles me that we have to waste floor time in the U.S. House of Representatives to help the EPA understand that theyre creating regulations that they themselves do not understand. Mr. Speaker. the EPA already requires pesticide permits from every farmer. rancher. forest manager. State agency. city. county municipality. mosquito control districts. water districts. and golf courses. just to name a few of those that they require permits from. If we do not enact H.R. 872. the EPA would then require an additional Clean Water Act permit for pesticides. I will add again. Mr. Speaker. that many of these permits are already redundant as pesticide applications are already highly regulated under the FIFRA Act. We all care about the environment. but these EPA regulations fail the common sense test. Mr. Speaker. That agency is on a regulatory path of the destruction of our economy. They are destroying our jobs. and they must be reined in. Mr. Speaker. perhaps we need a permit for the EPA that says the EPA must understand a rule before they pass one.
Date: 2011-03-29
Speaker: STEVE KING (republican)
Chamber: H

from Iowa. drift in here. If the gentleman has anything he wants to talk about here tonight. I would be glad to yield him some time.
Date: 2011-04-01
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Speaker. I rise to speak to the question that has been raised during this discussion. and that is the provision dealing with the pay of Members of Congress and the President of the United States. The Senate has sent over to us a bill which purported to deny pay to the President of the United States and to the Congress on a permanent basis for any time that lapsed during which there was not authorization for appropriations for the conduct of government activities. It is on its face blatantly unconstitutional. violating the section of the Constitution that deals with the Presidential pay and. specifically. the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. which does not allow us to do that. The intent. as expressed by the author of the bill before us in the statement of the constitutional authority. makes it clear that we recognize the limits of the action that we can take. and instead we would in this way command those payments not to be made during the period of time in which there is inaction by the President and the Congress of the United States. thereby making a very serious and good faith attempt to put that pressure on Members of Congress and the President of the United States. but in a constitutional way. So Members should be aware of the difference between the language contained in this provision before us and that which was sent over here by the Senate. which on its face constitutional scholars have looked at it here on the House side and the Senate side and the White House and have suggested that bill that came over from the Senate would not stand up to constitutional examination. This is an attempt on our side to try to provide that action. if demanded by Members of Congress. in a way that would be rendered constitutional. So at least I wanted to make sure that as we debate this point of order. the rule and the bill. that it is clear what the intention of the author is in this case and why we are attempting to follow constitutional procedures.
Date: 2011-04-01
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I heard the eloquent plea of our friends from the other side of the aisle. Let me just read to you a message I received from the White House about this bill. with the words that the gentleman has presented on the floor. "Unfortunately. S.B. 388"-which are the words the gentleman puts in his motion to recommit-"is patently unconstitutional. both as applied to Congress in violation of the 27th Amendment and to the President in violation of the compensation clause of Article II."
Date: 2011-04-01
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. No. I will not yield. So if one wants to. by this bill. have some pressure exerted on the House. the Senate. and the President. it would be in the language closer to that thats contained in the underlying bill-
Date: 2011-04-01
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Upon which you can make an argument it is constitutional because it does not vary the pay given to either the President or the Congress. which
Date: 2011-04-01
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Speaker. I believe regular order is to not interrupt one at the time that they are making the argument. Maybe it is because it is difficult to hear the words of the White House about the unconstitutionality of that which the gentleman brings to the floor. If anyone wants us to act in vain. it is the gentleman on the other side who has presented this motion to recommit because it is. under any view. any view. unconstitutional. It violates the very terms of the Constitution with respect to the President and with respect to Members of Congress. So if you want to exert any influence on Members. if you believe this is the way to do it. you would accept the language thats in the underlying bill which does not attack directly the words of the Constitution. I do not find it funny. I find it tragic that on this floorwe just heard the great arguments from the other side of the aisle about observing the Constitution. And then they come to the floor and give us something which the White House says in its email to me is "patently unconstitutional." not may be unconstitutional. not perhaps unconstitutional. not arguably unconstitutional. but "patently unconstitutional." So the gentleman has presented us the kind of. I guess. shell game we talk about where it looks good when its presented to you but. by sleight of hand. it makes sure that it has no impact whatsoever. The gentleman says. well. it will go right to the President. That is not true. This is not the bill sent over to us. Its the same language. so it does not go right to the President. number one. Number two. unless the President is sending me misinformation via his messenger. the Presidents position is its patently unconstitutional. The DOJs position. his Department of Justice says that it is patently unconstitutional. So I guess the gentleman is arguing to us. send it to the President so that he may commit a patently unconstitutional act. Now. I may have disagreements with the President. but I have no evidence whatsoever that the President is waiting with bated breath over at the White House for us to send something to him so that he can do an unconstitutional act. Perhaps the gentleman believes that is the position he wants to put the President in. And even though I have great disagreement with this President. frankly. I dont think that is an appropriate thing to do. So I would argue to my colleagues. reject this unanimously. because it is really something which doesnt pass the truth in labeling act. and more than that. it violates the Constitution on its very words. Its almost an attempt to directly violate the Constitution. You couldnt have written it better to violate the Constitution. but somehow the gentleman has achieved that high honor.
Date: 2011-04-05
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. its been 45 days since the House passed our bill to keep the government open and cut spending for the rest of this fiscal year. Fortyfive days. and Senate Democrats still have not passed a bill or come up with a plan to reduce spending. The American people have a right to know how we got here. For the first time since 1974. last year when the Democrats ran the House. the Senate. and the White House. the Democrat majorities failed to do their jobs. failed to pass a budget. failed to pass important spending bills. To create a better and stronger America. we need to cut spending. balance the budget. pay down the debt. and slash the deficit. The American people want. need. and deserve better than trying to run a government deep into debt. A sign in my office sums it up well. It says. "Its the spending. stupid."
Date: 2011-04-05
Speaker: AUSTIN SCOTT (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Georgia

Mr. Speaker. its been 45 days since House Republicans passed a bill to cut $100 billion in Federal spending. spending that quite honestly the prior Congress didnt have to spend and should have never appropriated. I want to remind you that we are here today because Senator REID. the Democrats in the House. and the President when they were in charge last year chose not to pass a budget. It was irresponsible of them then and it is irresponsible of them now to continue to do nothing. House Republicans spent 72 hours debating spending bills. We held 107 votes on spending amendments. Senate Democrats. 4 hours. four votes4 hours and four votes in 45 days. Mr. Speaker. I want you to think about that. Its unacceptable. Senator REID needs to get to work and pass a bill. The American people need it. American livelihoods are depending on it. Senator REID just needs to wake up in the morning. put on his bigboy britches. come to the Capitol. pass the bill. and help us reduce this big hairy deficit. MEDICARE
Date: 2011-04-08
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. sitting here listening to comments on the other side can be quite instructive. although I might warn my colleagues on the other side that they ought to be careful about the metaphors they use. One of those on the other side got up to criticize Republicans for trying to stop funding of abortions. which means saving babies. and used the unfortunate expression of "dont throw out the baby with the bathwater." It shows how almost obtuse they are with respect to what were actually talking about. The distinguished leader on the other side from Maryland quoted Henry Clay. Id like to quote an outstanding American. his name is STENY HOYER. who said just a couple of years ago here on this floor that if you cant budget. you cant govern. Thats why were in the problem that were in today. because when they had control of both sides of Capitol Hill and the Presidency. they. for the first time since the Budget Act was passed. intentionally did not pass a budget because they were embarrassed about the numbers. And what did that lead to? That led to the fact that we didnt pass any of the 13 appropriations bills. which led to the fact that we have to deal with a CR. Thats why were in the mess we are today. because they did not budget. And now they have the effrontery to come out and criticize PAUL RYAN. the Republican leader of the Budget Committees suggestion that we be serious about budgeting around here and that we understand that were driving our children into the ground and our grandchildren with debt that cannot be paid. and because we have the courage to bring forth a serious adult proposal on the budget. we are accused of trying to put children on the street and to not allow seniors to be able to eat. Come on. The American people are smarter than that. They want this House. this Senate. and this President to be adults. And to come here to this floor and to suggest that were trying to kill Medicarewere not trying to kill Medicare. were trying to save Medicare. Every objective review has said its going broke within 9 years. But maybe collective amnesia is the way to leadership. I hope not. I hope not. not for me. but for my children and my grandchildren. They deserve better. This country deserves better. We should be required to do better.
Date: 2011-04-12
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 8 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
Date: 2011-04-12
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of House Resolution 197 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
Date: 2011-04-12
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 33 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
Date: 2011-04-12
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on S.J. Res. 8. H. Res. 197. and H. Con. Res. 33.
Date: 2011-04-13
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Madam Speaker. it is with great privilege that I welcome my dear friend Dr. Jack Graham. pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano. Texas. one of the Nations largest. most dynamic congregations. as our guest chaplain for todays opening prayer. The mission at Prestonwood Baptist is to glorify God by introducing Jesus Christ as Lord to as many people as possible and to develop them in Christian living using the most effective means to impact the world. making a positive difference in this generation. Pastor Graham is an anointed and amazing speaker. accomplished author. community servant and bold leader who truly walks by faith. It is an honor to have him here in the peoples House blessing our Nations business and government leaders in Jesus precious name. Thank you. Pastor Graham. for all you do as a true servant of the Lord. God bless you and I salute you.
Date: 2011-05-05
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. as we have appropriately celebrated the successful mission to take out Osama bin Laden. there has been one discordant note sounded in the Halls of Congress. and that is with the testimony of the Attorney General of the United States. There still is a reluctance on the part of this administration to recognize the major contribution made to this country by those who were involved in enhanced interrogation techniques which resulted in part of the information. the intelligence information. that allowed us to find Osama bin Laden. The reason I bring this up is this administration has said in the past that certain types of enhanced interrogation techniques equaled torture. I do not believe that to be true. and for that to remain on the record subjects those men and women who have done a tremendous job for this country. which has resulted in one of the successful missions. in addition to other missions that have taken place in our war against terror. subjects them to the cloud of prosecution in the future and the accusation that they involved themselves in forms of conduct that would be defined as torture by some of the highest officials in the United States. That is something that we cannot allow to happen. When we have the CIA Director indicate that we did receive information as a result of some of these activities. it seems to me that we are duty bound to clear up the record and to thank those men and women. not condemn them.
Date: 2011-05-11
Speaker: HERRERA BEUTLER (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. the rising cost of gas is quickly becoming the hottest topic in any meeting. and especially in my hometown and in my neck of the woods in southwest Washington State. I hosted a job creators forum about 11 weeks ago. and one of the biggest issues I heard about was the rising cost of gas prices. One gentleman owns a pizza delivery operation. They make pizzas and deliver them. You can all imagine what rising gas prices do to a small business like this. Theyve had to let people go in the past. and theyre certain to hire people again. One of his requests was: make this affordable. One of the ways we can do that is by supporting this bill. because we open up the opportunity to get more domestic energy. And thats the reality. I cant wait for the day when our country no longer is dependent on fossil fuels. when we dont need gasoline or we dont need to get it from countries that dont like us. I cant wait for that day. And I support those explorations of alternative energies. But the problem is were not there yet. We are not there today. The reality is. every time gas goes up. we lose jobs. and in my neck of the woods. where we have doubledigit unemployment. 13 percent. 14 percent going on 3 years. it is unacceptable that this Congress would sit on its hands and do nothing while the price of gas goes up. If we explore for energy here domestically and we do it now. were going to bring relief today to those small business owners in our region. Theyre going to be able to hire more people. As we all go back to our districts next week. we know were going to hear from monms and dads. were going to hear from business owners about the high cost of gas. I invite my Democratic colleagues to join with us. Lets look our constituents in the eye and say: we supported legislation that will lower energy prices today to meet their needs.
Date: 2011-05-11
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary may have until 5 p.m. on Wednesday. May 18. 2011. to file its reports on H.R. 1800.
Date: 2011-05-11
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Chair. I rise in support of the bill under consideration. I heard one of my friends on the other side of the aisle suggest that the only thing people in California or other places that live near beaches. the only oil theyre concerned about is suntan oil. I have to take exception to that. Even though I represent an inland district now. I was born a block from the beach. I was a resident of a beachside community for 42 years. I grew up with kids whose parents worked in refineries. worked on oil rigs. were wildcatters. worked in offshore drilling in the Port of Long Beach. worked offshore. Huntington Beach. I just have to tell you. I find it insulting to suggest that those people are not concerned about the good of the United States. Were talking about the loss of middle class jobs in America. Theres nothing more middle class than those men and women who have worked for years in the oil industry. Where do you think it comes from. from the sky? Youve got to drill for it. Youve got to produce it. Youve got to refine it. And everything I hear on the other side of the aisle is were not going to allow you to drill. were not going to allow you to produce. were not going to allow you to refine because somehow its just going to show up. We watched the President of the United States. supported by the Members on the other side of the aisle. journey to Brazil and laud their efforts to use American technology to explore and drill and maximize their recovery of their resources. He lauded them for it. He thanked them for it. He applauded them for it. Then he turned around and said. And we want to be your biggest customer. In other words. he promised that we would pay a foreign entity for a resource that we need. Im absolutely convinced that my friends on the other side of the aisle will oppose any notion that we can have any offshore drilling unless we make Brazil the 51st State. Thats how absurd it is.
Date: 2011-05-11
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Chair. as someone who grew up with family members. with people whose families worked in this industry and did not consider it a dirty industry. considered it an allAmerican industry. how far have we come that now we denigrate it from top to bottom? We also hear from the other side. well. it wont have any impact because it takes 5 to 10 years to develop it. I heard that on this floor 32 years ago. I heard that on this floor 27 years ago. I heard that on this floor 22 years ago. I heard that on this floor 5 years ago. and it is correct. My friends on the other side are correct. It will make no difference so long as they make sure we dont drill now. we dont drill 35 years from now. we dont drill 10 years from now. We are harming ourselves. Its time to stop the harm.
Date: 2011-05-11
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I noted with interest that the President announced this week he was going to give a major address on immigration. As one whos been involved in this issue for three decades. I was very interested to find out the approach the President was going to take. So let me register my disappointment at the demonization of those who might have a disagreement with the President that was expressed by him in his speech yesterday. Talking about moats and talking about alligators and talking about intransigence on the other side of the aisle is not the way to attract bipartisan support to deal with one of the most difficult and important questions of our Nation. I wouldnt say Im outraged. I would say Im disappointed at the tone of those remarks of the President yesterday. If. in fact. were going to work together on issues as important as that. it would seem to me to be important for us to. in some way. at least accept the fact that there may be legitimate reasons for differences and try and bridge those differences. rather than expand them.
Date: 2011-05-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. today the United States Supreme Court delivered a body blow to the safety of the people of my home State of California. Today. in an unprecedented action of judicial intemperance. the United States Supreme Court basically ordered that between 38.000 and 46.000 prisoners currently in the California prison system be released. Many times Supreme Court decisions are of mere academic interest. This one specifically deals with the safety of the people of my home State. As one who led a team of attorneys general of the States of the Nation in the nineties to have prison litigation reform which was incorporated into a law that was passed by the Congress and signed by the President. this flies in the face of every piece of that bill. You rarely say this. but I fear that there will be murders. there will be rapes. there will be assaults. there will be unnamed and unnumbered crimes in my home State as a direct result of todays decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Since when did they take over all of the three branches of government. becoming the executive branch. the legislative branch. and the judicial branch?