macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Well. here we go again. Mr. Chairman. Lets make sure this bill is unconstitutional. Why not just tear up the First Amendment right here in front of everybody so they know what we are doing? The court has said you cannot establish disfavored groups over favored group. The gentleman has just expressed. perhaps an appropriately conditioned animus. toward those who are engaged in offshore drilling. So we are going to say they. those corporations. because they engage in offshore drilling. with leases. cannot participate in the political process in the way anybody else can. Now. he doesnt do it with leases for those who are on shore. He doesnt do it for those who have mineral leases on U.S. land. So what is the justification? The justification cant be what the gentleman just said in terms of the fragile ecological infrastructure. That is not the legal basis for which you can make a distinction. It is. why is the group that you are saying is singled out for this special treatment uniquely involved in corruption or the appearance of corruption. as opposed to all other groups similarly situated? And the gentleman. instead of arguing that point. talks about this terrible tragedy in the gulf. about which we all agree. but then says that is the basis for creating this distinction under the narrow allowance the Supreme Court has articulated over really two centuries of jurisprudence. And so what we are doing here is. we are finding what disfavored group do we have today. and let us treat them differently than everybody else. not in terms of whether they can negotiate for contract. but whether they can be involved in political speech as identified by the Supreme Court in their decision interpreting the First Amendment. Now. I realize that many on that side of the aisle love to refer to. I guess. a movie called "The Inconvenient Truth." but the true inconvenient truth in this body today is the First Amendment. The Constitution is inconvenient. There are things that you wish you could do but you are not allowed to do. And the fact of the matter is once again I find it incredible that my friend from Ohio would be fearful of robust debate and rather would say. well. this is an area in which we can refuse to allow debate. I mean. that is basically what the court has said to us. They said the cure for bad speech. intemperate speech. dishonest speech. speech we dont like. is not to somehow suppress that speech. but to allow more speech. To allow greater robust debate. And thats the tragedy here. we are confined by a rule that allows very few amendments. confined by a rule that limits debate about that great Constitution which enhances the idea of robust debate. So. once again. we are seeking to have an amendment adopted here which will move in the direction of less debate rather than more debate. create favored groups versus disfavored groups. give an advantage to some over the others rather than say lets have an equal playing field and make sure that everybody has the opportunity to be heard. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman. once again. the gentlemans response is off the target. If you want to ban offshore oil drilling. ban offshore oil drilling. but you are trying to ban speech. The idea is to cap the well. not cap speech. The idea here is to honor the First Amendment. not tear it up. The idea is not to use to your advantage a tragedy of enormous proportions to somehow render asunder the First Amendment. We are talking about debate. We are talking about speech. We are not talking about whether they can drill or not. The gentleman from Ohio has been one of those who has expressed himself with controversial at times and disfavored positions. and yet he honors this House by being here and arguing his position. I am surprised that someone who has been so proud of his ability to speak out on controversial issues would want to deny others the opportunity. This has nothing to do with drilling in the gulf. It has everything to do with selecting disfavored groups. which is something the Constitution does not allow us to do. Lets not tear up the Constitution as the environment is torn up by an offshore drilling mess.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. The difference between TARP and this is that recipients of TARP get money. In this case. these people get leases. which allow them to pay money to the Federal Government. Its just the opposite.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. in the years Ive been here in the House. I know there is allowed under the rules a tradition that the leaders of either the majority or minority or the Speaker is granted 1 minute speaking time by their side. taken out of their time. and yet. shall we say. a judicious minute is allowed. It was my understanding that under the rules and. as interpreted. the tradition that has developed. that it was predicated on a dedication of 1 minute out of the time of the side. And yet. as I understand it. the request has been made for just 10 seconds. My parliamentary inquiry is. is that allowed under the rules? And if it is. when did the rules change? The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will advise that it is a matter of custom. not rules.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Well. then I would ask. if its a matter of custom. when did the custom change from 1 minute to 10 seconds? The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is honoring the custom of the various leaders speaking longer than the time allocated. and that is what happened today.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I understand that. My question is the time thats taken out of the side. I granted 1 minute to the Republican leader earlier in the debate because I was told that that is both under the rules allowed and that is the tradition. I know Ive only been a Member of this House now for 16 years. but I have never seen this in my time. and I am just wondering whether this is the new rule or the new tradition. And further parliamentary inquiry. whether I would have been recognized to grant 10 seconds to the distinguished leader of the Republican side and therefore had only 10 seconds taken out of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will advise the gentleman that the nominal time granted is unrelated to the time that the leaders might speak. and here the leader spoke for the longer time that he wished to speak.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I appreciate that. I think the Chair misunderstands my inquiry. My inquiry isnt about the amount of time graciously granted to either leader or the Speaker. but rather the time subtracted from that that appears in the rule given to the side granting the time to the leader. The Acting CHAIR. The nominal amount that a Member chooses to yield to the leader to speak for the time that he or she wishes is not a matter of regulation.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Is that amount of time deducted from the side which grants the speaker the time? The Acting CHAIR. Yes. the nominal amount of time is deducted.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. So if I would say 5 seconds. it would be 5 seconds rather than if I had said 1 minute. is that correct? The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is correct. That is a matter of technique or choice.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I see. I shall be much more judicious in my grant of time in the future now that I have had this information conveyed. Thank you.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. How much time does each side have. Mr. Chair? The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 21/2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 30 seconds remaining.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I would just say. Mr. Chairman. once again. that we are moving down the wrong track here. We are chilling speech already. Now we are creating the possibility of direct intimidation by those by requiring the residence and hometown of the people who might appear there. Though. if were going to go part of the way. lets go all the way. We really want to make sure no one is going to be able to use their First Amendment right. This will help seal the deal. So. if thats what you want. vote for this amendment. Otherwise. please support the Constitution and the First Amendment. and defeat this amendment. The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. this motion to recommit is of three parts. I would like to ask the gentleman from Texas. the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. to explain one of the parts as it deals with a very important constitutional issue.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. as I mentioned. this motion to recommit is in three parts. It applies the acts expanded ban on expenditures by foreign nationals to include lobbyists who register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act to represent countries defined as state sponsors of terrorism or to represent a foreign national as defined by the act. It also provides that political robocalls which are not authorized by a candidate may only be made if none of the individuals who are called are listed on the Federal donotcall registry. It does nothing with our robocalls by the candidate or by teletown halls either as a candidate or as a Member of Congress. Finally. as was mentioned by the gentleman from Texas. this repairs. hopefully. an unintentional problem in this billperhaps intentional. This bill does not have the expedited appellate procedure that weve had in every other campaign finance law. And what this motion to recommit does is says that same process that weve had which allows an expedited review of the underlying constitutionality of this bill will be in this bill as it has been in the past. Why? Because we are dealing with the First Amendment to the Constitution. and people ought to know sooner rather than later whether the law we passed is constitutional. If in fact your intent is to ensure there is vagueness for this election period so that those who are protected in this billthat is. the exemptions given to the unions applies. but there is uncertainty on the part of other corporate entities. either forprofit or notforprofit. that will have a chilling effect on the latter group. and that will create an uneven playing field for the balance of this election period. The only way in which you might not have that uneven playing field is to have an expedited consideration all the way to the Supreme Court of the underlying constitutionality. We have spent 40 hours in this Congress naming post offices. cant we spend a little bit of time protecting the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States? And also. make sure that the judicial branch has an opportunity to review this so that people can know when they are able to speak. Were talking about political speech. the essence of the First Amendment. and for us not to allow that consideration by the courts in an accelerated manner. as we have every other time. is unworthy of this place. is unworthy of our constituents. and is unworthy of the Constitution that we take an oath to uphold. I would ask for a unanimous vote in support of this motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of the Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act that we have before us. For too long my Democrat colleagues have been playing games with the physician reimbursement fix. Playing chicken with the deadline time and time and time again and putting Medicare beneficiaries at risk while hurting small businesses across the country. Ive the highest number of constituents on Medicare of any Member of Congress. Believe me. I have heard from them loud and clear that they are disgusted with how long it took because their doctors are indeed refusing to take patients. Whether its the handling of the oil spill or their inability to put together a budget. it seems that even the basic responsibilities of running the government have become far too difficult for them. Im glad to see this bill finally come before the House today. but I would remind all of our constituents that this could have been prevented. Months ago. my Republican colleagues and I offered and voted for a longer fix that would have been fully paid for. Americans are tired of the credit card mentality of Washington. This is a voting card. ladies and gentlemen. It is not a credit card.
Date: 2010-06-29
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Speaker. this week the United States Supreme Court actually decided a constitutional question of extreme importance. and it had to deal with the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. The interesting thing was they reached this conclusion by looking at the text of the Constitution. the words of the Second Amendment. What a shame we didnt do that last week when we were dealing with the DISCLOSE Act. where we essentially eviscerated the First Amendment. the First Amendment protection for political speech. Instead of saying that it exists for all and that we should protect it for all. we decided that some are more equal than others. We auctioned off parts of the First Amendment last week. Let us hope that the Senate will not repeat that mistake. and that we understand that perhaps the best way to understand what the Constitution means is to actually look at its words. Sometimes you can find the rights expressed there far more easily than looking at penumbras and those that emanate from penumbras. At times it makes sense for us to pay attention to what the Founding Fathers actually said.
Date: 2010-06-29
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of the bill before us. the Homebuyers Assistance and Improvement Act of For reasons known only to them. our Democrat colleagues in the Senate have been unable or unwilling to reach a compromise addressing the bipartisan concerns about the bundle of extensions still pending across the Capitol. Due to this failure of basic leadership. the National Flood Insurance Program was allowed to expire. as well as a number of other programs. I mention the Flood Insurance Program specifically because realtors in my district are calling my office morning. noon and night on behalf of clients who cannot close on their new homes without an extension in the Flood Insurance Program. Remember. it is Florida. You need flood insurance. Subsequently. quite a few of these individuals are going to be missing the homebuyer tax credit that they were told they would qualify for. Say what you will about the tax credit. but in my view. if the government says it is going to do something. like anybody else. it had better follow through. Frankly. at this point. Im not sure that the Democrat majority is even capable of doing that. If you cant muster up enough votes to ram your agenda through. despite opposition from your own Members. or you are faced with the prospect of actually having to pay for somethingisnt that unique?-this government comes to a screeching halt. On most issues. my constituents and I think this liberal legislative meltdown is a blessing. but on matters where families and small businesses have made financial decisions based on the expectation that the government would keep its word. we do demand and deserve action. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have control of the White House. and they have the majorities in both houses of Congress. They need to stop blaming everybody else and get their act together for the sake of the American people.
Date: 2010-06-29
Speaker: MARIO DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Madam Speaker. I rise today to honor the life of Navy Seaman William Ortega. This fallen American hero gave his life on June 18 after a bomb exploded while he was in a patrol vehicle and while he was conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Helmand Province in Afghanistan. Seaman Ortega. 23 years old. was a hospital corpsman to the 3rd Battalion. 1st Marine Regiment. 1st Marine Division. 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton. His battalion is nicknamed the "Thundering Third." His family stated that Seaman Ortega cherished becoming an American citizen. He enjoyed being named "student of the month" at school and winning first place at the local youth fair. Throughout middle school and high school. he made the Honor Roll. He was involved in clubs. and he excelled in every sport that he played. After graduating from South Dade High School in 2005. Seaman Ortega went on to study at Florida Career College where he obtained a degree in Web site design. Then Seaman Ortega joined the military because of the core values military life has to offer. He wanted to give back to a nation that had given him and his family so much opportunity. So. as a hospital corpsman. he was a Navy medic who treated those who were injured in combat. His sister Aracely Ortega described him as an "awesome brother and an awesome friend." She also said. "He had a lot of respect for this Nation. and he paid the ultimate sacrifice. unfortunately." For his brave service and sacrifice. Seaman Ortega was posthumously awarded the Purple Heart. the Combat Action Ribbon. the Afghanistan Campaign Medal. the NATO Non Article V Medal. and the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon. He is survived by his parentsWilliam and Marianela Ortegaand by his five sisters. and hundreds gathered. over the weekend in Miami. to pay respect and to pay tribute to this American fallen hero. Our grateful Nation grieves with his family during this difficult time. and our grateful Nation will never forget William Ortega. a true American hero.
Date: 2010-06-30
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

You know. last week the House leader announced that Democrats will not craft a budget next year. Instead of going line by line to see what programs could be eliminated or reduced. they are ignoring the dire warnings of economists and continuing on their spending frenzy. No budget? No problem. Not enough money? No problem. Theyll just raise taxes on the middle class. breaking their promise not to raise taxes on families earning less than $250.000. They need to produce a budget and stop the outofcontrol spending that has pushed our national debt past $13 trillion. I dont know whats worse. failing to produce a budget or how the Democrats already have resigned to the fact they will raise taxes on middle class families to pay for their wasteful ways. Americans want. need. and deserve better. Make a budget. cut spending for our freedom and for our future.
Date: 2010-06-30
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in opposition to this bill. This country is going through a period of great economic distress. and ultimately. this bill would only serve to heighten uncertainty in the marketplace. restrict access to credit. and place more and more undue burdens on the backs of American small businesses. This bill eliminates consumer options in housing markets. This bill includes language that alters ways consumers choose to pay their mortgage origination fees. Currently. consumers have the choice to pay origination fees up front. partially finance costs through the rate. or some combination of the two. This bill eliminates the consumers ability to partially pay up front and partially finance costs through the rate. ultimately leading to higher costs and fewer options available to home buyers. This bill favors the Federal Government over the private market. This bill places several new onerous restrictions on private community banks and then explicitly exempts the Federal Government from these same restrictions. The effect of these new restrictions is that consumers will be steered toward the government when seeking financing options and encouraging a greater takeover of the economy by the Federal Government. This bill once again breaks our promise to the American people that excess TARP funds would go to pay down the debt and deficit. When this body enacted TARP in an effort to stave off a total economic collapse. we promised that any return the Federal Government made from the taxpayers investment into the financial sector of this economy would go directly to paying down the deficit and the national debt. currently over $13 trillion. Instead. this bill breaks that promise by taking remaining TARP funds and using them to pay for the Federal takeover of the economy. What we should do instead. we need to get the Federal Government out of the way so that small businesses can begin to innovate and expand. We need to provide a regulatory framework that provides community banks and small businesses the ability to make their own financial decisions. Mr. Speaker. we cannot continue to break our promise to the American people. The future of this great Nation and that of its sons and daughters depends on the actions we take here today. And I can only conclude that this legislation will prolong this recession and lead us further down the road of high deficit and greater debt. I urge a "no" vote on this bill.
Date: 2010-07-01
Speaker: TIM MURPHY (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Pennsylvania

Mr. Speaker. what were world leaders saying last weekend about their troubled economies? German Chancellor Merkel: Budget cuts are urgently needed. Prime Minister David Cameron: Those countries that have big budget deficits like ours have to take action. The Washington Post headline said: "President Obama urges G20 nations to spend. they pledge to halve deficits." Just like England. the U.S. has a budget deficit thats equal to 11 percent of gross domestic product. While other nations are tightening their belts. Washington is borrowing Chinese money belts. By years end. the national debt will reach 62 percent of the GDP. the highest leveled since World War II. The more Washington spends. the more it borrows. the more interest rates. the more taxpayers must spend on interest payments to Chinese and foreign debt holders. You know. the first rule when youre in a hole. especially a $13 trillion hole. is stop digging. American families understand that just because there are checks in the checkbook. that doesnt mean theres money in the account. And thats the message from Main Street to Wall Street. Is anybody listening?