macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2006-07-13
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of the Voting Rights Act authorization. I will be inserting for the RECORD a letter from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Tim Kaine. supporting the act as written. It is an unfortunate fact of our history that there were once entrenched practices that served to deny minorities their franchise. Such systematic discrimination cannot stand in a country founded on the promise of freedom and equal protection under the law. Some argue that those times have passed. that there is no need to reauthorize the law. But the committee held over a dozen hearings on this and found.out that there are still discriminatory practices around the country. Fortyone years ago. I thought our predecessors in the Congress put this issue to rest. They determined this legislation was the best method by which to ensure the oneman. onevote principle would be a reality. Much has been said about -the onerous nature of certain provisions of section 5. My State. the Commonwealth of Virginia. in its entirety. is covered by section 5 in the original Voting Rights Act. But we are also the only State to have jurisdictions that have exercised their right to bail out under section 5. In order to bail out. a jurisdiction must have been in full compliance with the preclearanbe requirements for 10 years. It can have no test or device to discriminate on the basis of race. color. language. or minority status. and no lawsuit against the jurisdiction alleging voter discrimination can be pending. Eleven jurisdictions. some of which are in my district. have bailed out successfully. More jurisdictions should and will follow suit. I have been assured by civil rights leaders they will support bailouts where appropriate. where jurisdictions can meet the basic requirement. I would like to note that the justification for the continuing of this act is not based solely on old data. that. in fact. hearings have been held. and I think the record is complete showing the continued need for this. Section 5 is important because it is still being used today to prevent changes in the law which would adversely affect minorities. In fact. section 5 has been used more since 1982 than it was used before 1982. We have come a long way in the Commonwealth of Virginia and in America generally. but that doesnt mean there still isnt more work to be done. I congratulate the chairmen and the ranking members for working on this very bipartisan bill and urge its support.
Date: 2006-07-13
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment in order to enhance and support the constitutional framework upon which this law before us is predicated. The reason I say that is that. you know. 25 years ago. as I mentioned. I was working with the distinguished ranking member of the full committee on extending this law for 25 years. At that time. there seemed to be evidence supporting that. But I have been gone for 16 years in this House. I come back and find there are very few Members here who were here when I was here before. As a matter of fact. some-" times I talk to Members and I feel like I am sort of the museum piece being pulled out for people to observe. The only point I make is 25 years is a long time. And if you look at the testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by Professor Hasen from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. he points out that this kind of amendment may very well be the kind of amendment that saves this law under consideration by a future Supreme Court with respect to its constitutionally. Why? Because he said. beginning in 1965. Congress imposed the strong preclearance remedy on those jurisdictions with what the Supreme Court called a pervasive. flagrant. and unremitting history of discrimination in voting on the basis of race. In South Carolina v. Katzenbach. the court upheld section 5 of the act as a permissible exercise of congressional power. But what has changed since 1965. as Professor Hasen says. both the law and the facts. And he suggests that we may be creating an infirm law by extending it for 25 years because the Court has said you have to have a connection with the historic discrimination. and it has to be proportionate to that. And it has to pass those two tests. And the very argument that we extend it for 25 years. I think. argues against the defense of this in court. And rather than saying that the gentleman from Texass amendment is an amendment that weakens this law. I believe it strengthens it. I suggest again. we have three counties in California that are under preclearance coverage only because in 1972 they had military installations. and so the people there were counted in the census. even though they voted in their home States. One of those counties has 49.6 percent participation. Those counties. have not been able to get out from under it. Now we are going to say. for another 25 years. because of the presence of military in your sparsely populated counties during the height of the Vietnam War. you are not going to be able to get out. I find that difficult to justify if you are appearing before the Supreme Court saying that we have carefully tailored this bill. So I would just ask my colleagues. look at this amendment. It is not a gutting amendment. It is an intelligent amendment that really goes to supporting the constitutional framework of this bill.
Date: 2006-07-13
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Chairman. I thank the chairman very much for yielding this time. I rise today in support of this amendment. which I am cosponsoring along with my good friend and colleague Congressman KING. Bilingual ballot requirements were not in the original Voting Rights Act. As a matter of fact. they were only added in 1975. and were always intended to be a temporary crutch. not a permanent mandate. And that mandate. by the way. is an unfunded mandate. Now. many of us came from backgrounds in the State legislature and/or local governments. and .what. was the one thing we complained the most about? Unfunded Federal mandates. This. ladies and gentlemen. is an unfunded Federal mandate. To become a citizen today you must demonstrate that you can speak English. These requirements have encouraged new immigrants to learn our language and become part of our society. We must return to this tradition to reunite our society and erase the divide between new citizens and those with two. three. and more generations in this great Nation. Certainly. if you were a citizen living in Mexico and you wanted to participate in the latest Mexican election and English was the language that you spoke. I guarantee you that the recent Mexican elections did not have English ballots for those who only spoke English.
Date: 2006-07-13
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Chairman. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I would like to preface my remarks by expressing my profound admiration for the author of this amendment who I think is a great American patriot. In the Rules Committee. I supported his right to be heard on the floor today. And I rise in opposition to the amendment. I think that we have made great progress. One of the beauties of America is we are constantly improving as a Nation. We have improved to the point that citizens. for example naturalized citizens. it is important to point out that the elderly. pursuant to our laws. when they have been residents. legal residents of the United States for many years and they seek to become an American citizen. according to our laws. they can take the exam to become an American citizen in their language of preference. their language of origin. What we said in amendments to the Voting Rights Act. those people have a right to understand what they are voting on. Whether it is a simple choice of candidate or a complex ballot issue. elderly citizens who are naturalized have a right to understand what they are voting on. Also. there are millions of nativeborn Americans whose language. primary language. is not the English language. And so we believe. just like we certainly are extremely proud of those citizens. whether they are naturalized or en route to be naturalized or native born and they defend this country. and we are certainly grateful to them and proud of them when they do so. we think they should have the right when they vote to be able to understand the ballot initiatives that they are voting on or other questions. So I really think. Mr. Chairman. that the fairer we are as a society. the greater we are. The more fair our country is. the greater our country is. This is an example. We have opened an opportunity for full participation. for citizens whose primary language is other than English. to the ballot box. And I think we should be proud of that as a country. So I again commend Chairman SENSENBRENNER for bringing forth this legislation and oppose the amendment before us at this time.
Date: 2006-07-13
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment. It is interesting that individuals are required to take their U.S. citizenship test in English. not in another. language. but in English. It is also interesting that we provide an opportunity if they want to take a translator to the polls to help them. they are able to do that also. But in my district. which is basically Orange County. individuals received a letter which is called an outreach letter offering foreign language ballots. These were sent to any individual who had a foreignsounding name such as Martinez or Chen. The response I received was overwhelming. and it was pure anger that the assumption was made because my name happened to be Chen or Martinez that I was not a U.S. citizen capable of speaking English. Less than. seventenths of 1 percent of the 1.5 million people in Orange County actually requested nonEnglish ballots. yet they only have to provide five ballots today: English. Spanish. Korean. Chinese and Vietnamese. The next Census has predicted that they will have to produce an additional five laniguages. This is a reasonable amendment. I ask for an "aye" vote.
Date: 2006-07-17
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill to amend the National Capital Transportation Act of 1969 to authorize additional Federal contributions for maintaining and improving the transit system of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. and for other purposes. as amended.
Date: 2006-07-17
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may. have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
Date: 2006-07-17
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia . who has been a champion of transportation in the Washington area during his tenure in Congress.
Date: 2006-07-17
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I would recognize my distinguished colleague from northern Virginia. a neighbor. and also a strong transportation advocate. Mr. MORAN. for 3 minutes.
Date: 2006-07-17
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Before I begin. I would ask unanimous consent to put the memorandum from Greg Waring of the Congressional Budget Office into the RECORD noting that OBO has reviewed the proposed amendment and it does not authorize any additional appropriations. score of zero.
Date: 2006-07-17
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. this is not a new program. This program was authorized in 1960 and signed by President Eisenhower. It has been reauthorized four times. and I hope it has a long life. a long productive life. taking commuters off clogged roads and using mass transit so we can reduce our energy dependency on foreign oil. Mr. Speaker. this is not an authorization of funds. It is about making sure. as my colleagues have said. that this money is spent well. If this goes down. the money still goes through without any checks and balances and Inspector Generals or any of these being set up. If you vote against this bill. you are not saying we should not spend any extra dollars on the Metro system. You are not saying that. You are saying they can spend the extra dollars without the congressional oversight. Statistics show that Metro is. in fact. one of the best run systems. but I am not willing to say they are so good that no improvements are required and additional oversight is not required. The provisions in this came from a GAO report. It is our responsibility in Congress to ensure Federal dollars are well spent. There should be nothing contentious about requiring an Inspector General. adding Federal members to the board. or requiring the jurisdictions to truly provide stable funding to the system. So I urge my colleagues to offer this bill their full support. I appreciate the comments of my colleague. He has long been a supporter of no further Federal spending. but we are out the barn door on this. That happened under the previous legislation. under the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act. This refines it and controls it and makes sure the money is well spent. I hope my colleagues will join us in legislation that scores zero with the Congressional Budget Office and reauthorizes this legislation.
Date: 2006-07-17
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Speaker. I rise in. support of the bill H.R. 4075. the Marine Mammals Protection Act. legislation that protects a true wonder ofnature. the Florida manatee. Living in Floridas streams. swamps. and rivers. manatees are beloved throughout my district and especially in Citrus County. The Marine Mammals Protection Act provides new and increased protections for the manatees from fishermen and from wildlife loss. Chairman RICHARD POMBO deserves credit for bringing this bill -up for a vote and helping to protect one of Floridas most precious natural resources. Mr. Speaker. this legislation will provide grants and protections to help ensure that Floridas sea cows will be around for my grandchildren. my great grandchildren. and everyone to enjoy years into the future. There actually is a preserve in my area where the manatees. once they are injured. can go for treatment. and it is a wonderful. wonderful resource. Thankfully. the manatee has come back from being endangered.
Date: 2006-07-18
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. the argument on the floor that somehow this is a church issue misses this point entirely. We are talking about the legal implications. and whether or not the Government of the United States can recognize a preferential status for marriag6 between one man and one woman. Now. is this unprecedented? No. it is not. Read your American history. The State of Utah was not allowed to become a State until they recognized marriage as being only between one man and one woman. That had to do with whether you could have multiple partners. This is a different aspect of that question. but essentially the legal basis is the same. And that is what we are talking about here. Those who wish to change this. as these activist judges do. carry the burden of arguing why we should change an institution which has stood the test of time for thousands of years. There are reasons for this in terms of it being the most stable unit of society upon which our society has found itself in need. That is what we are talking about. It is not discrimination. It is allowing the existence of a definition of the most fundamental unit of society. That is it simply. We are not intruding in the province of churches.
Date: 2006-07-18
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. what I would like to ask is this: Does the gentleman see any problem with society allowing preferential status in some ways to the traditional marriage between a man and a woman? Because that. to me. is what it really comes down to.
Date: 2006-07-18
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. if I could just respond to the question of federalism. There is a mistake on this floor when people are talking about this being a violation of federalism. Federalism. properly understood. is a check on the power of the Federal Government by the State government and vice versa. The reason why the federalism issue does not apply here is because marriage and the family is likewise an institution. although a private one. which provides a countervailing source of power visavis the government. and there are lot of arguments on the floor. It is too bad we do not have a lot more time to talk about it. The simple question. though. is are we going to fundamentally change the definition of marriage. understood in this country since its founding. and allow a preferential status for marriage properly understood? That is what we are really talking about. It is not discrimination. It is the question of whether you allow the traditional form of marriage to be given preferential status. Those that argue against this amendment do not want that to be the case anymore. They are the ones that are overturning history and overturning the way things have been done for several hundred years in this country and thousands of years in this culture.
Date: 2006-07-18
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Madam Speaker. I rise today in firm support of H. Res. 721. which supports the goals and ideals of a SalvadorianAmerican Day (El Dia del Salvadoren) in recognition of all SalvadoranAmericans for their hard work. dedication. and contribution to the stability and wellbeing of the United States. Salvadorans form an integral part of our communities and our labor force. My district in Northern Virginia. for example. is home to many hardworking Salvadorans who pay taxes and consume U.S. products. Salvadorans also play an important role in the economy of their native country by sending billions of dollars in payments to their families in Central America every year. The remittances that these individuals send to their families are a large source of revenue. which the United States could not match in foreign aid. As a result. after suffering through a string of brutal civil wars. El Salvador now has a moderate. democraticallyelected government. Madam Speaker. in closing it is all too easy to overlook the important and daily contributions that Salvadorian Americans have made not just to Northern Virginia. but to our Nation as a whole. This bill provides much needed and deserved recognition to the Salvadorian American community for the indelible mark they have made upon the diversity and prominence of our great nation. I urge an "aye" vote.
Date: 2006-07-18
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Speaker. the conflict between Hezbollah. the infamous Lebanesebased terrorist group. and Israel is nothing new. But over the weekend Hezbollah has upped the ante. They have kidnapped Israeli soldiers and launched countless rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. With the support of Iran and Syria. Hezbollah is heavily armed and ready for an allout war. Obviously. this issue is not new. In 1990 the peace treaty that ended the hostilities in Lebanon called on the Lebanese Government to deploy its army along the border with Israel. This has not been done. In 2004. the United Nations called on Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah. Once again. this has not been done. With this in mind. Israel not only has the right to defend itself against terrorist acts. it has the responsibility to do so. Allowing Hezbollah to terrorize Israel without fear of reprisal would be tantamount to appeasement. Throughout history. this strategy has repeatedly proven itself a failure.
Date: 2006-07-19
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of H. Res. 911. which expresses the House of Representatives deepest condolences to the people of India and the victims and their families for the terrorist attacks that occurred in Mumbai on July 11. India is a strategic friend and ally of the U.S. As the two largest pluralistic. freemarket democracies in the world. it is only natural for the U.S. and Indiato seek closer tie. with one another. India has one of the worlds largest and fastest growing populations with nearly 1.1 billion people. According to the United Nations. Indias population could overtake China by as early as 2030. In addition. Indian Americans have made an indelible mark upon the culture and diversity of our Nation. I was proud to sponsor H. Res. 227 that recognized the contributions of Indian Americans to our Nation. which the House passed earlier this year. India and the U.S. have a strong history of cooperation. Directly after the September 11. 2001 terrorist attacks. India was one of the first countries to offer immediate aid to the United States. Most recently. the two countries announced an agreement which would allow full trade in civil nuclear energy. In exchange for such trade. India has agreed to separate its military and civilian nuclear programs over the next eight years. placing 14 of its 22 reactors under permanent international safeguards. as well as all future civilian thermal and breeder reactors. It has also agreed to maintain its unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing and to work with the United States toward a fissile material cutoff treaty. which would ban the production of fissile material. like plutonium239. used in nuclear weapons and other explosive devices.. The bloody attacks that took innocent lives in Mumbai eariier this month demonstrate that terrorism does not discriminate by race. ethnicity. or region. Instead. terrorists target those seeking to live a peaceful and free life. We must hunt the terrorists down and bring themto justice. There is no other way to respond to those so committed to the destruction of life. We must also stand in solidarity with the Indian government. its citizens. and the number of Indian Americans who also lost loved ones. This resolution does just thatmaking it clear that Congress and the American people are behind them during this difficult period. Mr. Speaker. in closing let the House of Representatives speak in unison and with clarity on this issueterrorism has no place in this world and will not be tolerated. I thank the leadership on both sides for allowing this resolution on the floor today and urge an aye vote.
Date: 2006-07-19
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Speaker. I rise today as a mother. as a Member of this body. and certainly as a concerned citizen who fears that the untapped potential of stem cell research may be falling by the wayside. I was disheartened to learn that the President did veto H.R. 810 today because it passed the House by a very significant majority. It is because of my strong respect for and commitment to life that I supported this bill last year. A sad fact of life is that many of our loved ones suffer from debilitating diseases such as Alzheimers. diabetes and Parkinsons. But embryonic stem cell research holds promise to cure these illnesses. A visit to the Miami Project. where they are trying to find a cure for paralysis. certainly would convince anyone of the need for this research. They have shown very promising progress. The bill brings forth hope from embryos that would otherwise be discarded. thrown in the trash. These are embryos that can be used for good Ind for substantial medical research. Overriding the veto today will provide promise of hope and promise to millions of Americans suffering from diseases and I Urge my colleagues to vote in favor of life by voting "yes" to override the Presidents veto.