macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2007-05-08
Speaker: JO ANN DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I rise in- support of H.R. 1294. the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act. I would like to thank Representative MORAN for his leadership. efforts and work. and also Chairman RAHALL for bringing this measure to the floor. Several of the Virginia tribes are located within my congressional district. and I am proud to be one of the primary cosponsors of this historically significant legislation. As a former member of the Virginia Council on Indians. it is important to me that the tribes who were here before the English landing at Jamestown in 1607. receive all the rights afforded other similarly situated Indian tribes. Often in the face of discrimination and persecution. the Virginia Indian community has strived for centuries to maintain their heritage and culture. Between 1912 and 1946 the Bureau of Vital- Statistics in Virginia systematically erased all reference to Indians in public records. Additionally. Virginias Racial Integrity Act of 1924 required all Indians to register as white or colored. These discriminatory actions and laws essentially erased hundreds of years of Virginia Indian dignity. heritage. and genealogy. The members of these tribes have worked tirelessly and deserve greater autonomy and control to deal with tribal housing. health care and education. The six tribes were recognized by Virginia between 1983 and 1989. However. significant destruction of tribal records at the hands of the Commonwealth of Virginia have made prompt recognition and documentation through the Bureau of Indian Affairs record intensive bureaucratic process impossible. I believe it is appropriate that Congress take steps to federally recognize the Chickahominy. the Eastern Division Chickahominy. the Upper Mattaponi. the Rappahannock. the Monacan Indian - Nation. and the Nansemond Indian Tribe. - It is appropriate as -the Nation commemorates- tf 400th Anniversary of the first permanent English settlement in the New World that Congress officially recognizes the tribes who were here before Captain John Smith set foot in America. I urge my colleagues to adopt this bill and extend much deserved recognition to these Virginia tribes.
Date: 2007-05-08
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to support this bill to correct a long standing historical inequity. *H.R. 1294 would provide federal recognition to six American Indian tribes in the Commonwealth of Virginia. With this formal recognition our Government will extend to these tribes the respect. dignity and benefits afforded to 562 other American Indian tribes. " Despite historical records documenting the existence of these tribes dating back to the 1600s and formal recognition by the Commonwealth in the 1980s. their efforts to receive Federal recognition have been ongoing for decades. While documents normally required by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are missing or have been altered. this was not the fault or result of tribal action. In 1997. Virginia -passed legislation to correct these historical records and in 1999 passed a resolution urging Congress to grant these tribes Federal recognition. This inequity should stand no- longer. The Chickahominy Indian Tribe. the Eastem Division of the Chickahominy Indian Tribe. the Upper Mattaponi Tribe. the Rappahannock Tribe Inc.. the Monacan Indian Nation. and the Nansemond Indian Tribe deserve to be on equal footing with other tribes in the United States. They would benefit greatly from the ability to compete for educational programs. grants and other federal services. Mr. Speaker. this has gone on long enough. As we commemorate the 400th anniveary of -May 8. 2007 (0 the founding of Jamestown andhonor the!hiStory and courage that experience entailed.- let us also honor these Native Americans who have persevered through a system of exclusion. by mandating Federal recognition.
Date: 2007-05-08
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to support this bill to correct a longstanding historical inequity. H.R. 1294 would provide Federal recognition to six American Indian tribes in the Commonwealth of Virginia. With this formal recognition our Government will extend to these tribes the respect. dignity and benefits afforded to 562 other American Indian tribes. Despite historical records documenting the existence of these tribes dating back to the 1600s and formal recognition by the Commonwealth in the 1980s. their efforts to receive Federal recognition have been ongoing for decades. While documents normally required by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are missing or have been altered. this was not the fault or result of tribal action. In 1997. Virginia passed legislation to correct these historical records and in 1999 passed a resolution urging Congress to grant these tribes Federal recognition. This inequity should stand no longer. The Chickahominy Indian Tribe. the Eastern Division of the Chickahominy Indian Tribe. the Upper Mattaponi Tribe. the Rappahannock Tribe Inc.. the Monacan Indian Nation. and the Nansemond Indian Tribe deserve to be on equal footing with other tribes in the United States. They would benefit greatly from the ability to compete for educational programs. grants and other Federal services. Mr. Speaker. this has gone on long enough. As we commemorate the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown and honor the history and courage that experience entailed. let us also honor these Native Americahs who have persevered through a system of exclusion. by mandating Federal recognition.
Date: 2007-05-08
Speaker: JO ANN DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 117. a resolution that I have introduced to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the settlement at Jamestown. I want to thank my colleague TOM DAvIS for his work on this resolution and also the entire Virginia delegation for their support. I feel very honored to represent the First District of Virginia. what I like to call Americas First District. As we all know. in 1607 the first permanent English colony in North America was founded in Jamestown. Virginia. As we look back on this historic time 400 years later. it is obvious that the journey that began with the settlement of Jamestown has truly changed the world. Representative government in America began at Jamestown and many of our Nations democratic ideals and institutions. including the rule of law. free enterprise. and cultural diversity. trace their roots to that beginning. It was not a perfect beginning. but nonetheless it was the start of an experiment that changed the course of history. I would be remiss if I did not mention the Native Americans contributions to the early beginnings of this Nation. The Jamestown settlement owed its survival in large measure to the compassion and aid of the Virginia Indians. They provided the colonists with food and supplies at times that were crucial to their survival. and they served as guides to geography and natural resources. including the colonists exploration of the Chesapeake Bay region. It is a fact that the settlement would not have survived without the Virginia Indians. and we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. As Americans. we are so blessed with the freedoms that we enjoy and with the truth for which our country stands. Many of these ideals can be traced back to Jamestown. Virginia. And I urge my colleagues to vote for H. Con. Res. 117 to commemorate the events that took place 400 years ago.
Date: 2007-05-08
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of H. Con. Res 117. Mr. Speaker. 400 hundred years ago a group of entrepreneurs from the Virginia Company landed on Jamestown Island with the intent of establishing a colony to find gold and a water route to the Orient. This landing spot became the first permanent English colony in America and later became the capital of Virginia for 92 years. Mr. Speaker. I ask today that we take a moment to focus on the courage of those who lived there. In a strange land. yet not the land they sought. in an unhealthy place plagued by disease. fire and the elements. they banded together to make a life. And that life was not an easy one. By the end of 1607. after a particularly harsh winter. only 60 of the original 214 settlers remained alive. If Captain John Smith hadnt contrived to get food for the Indians. the American dream might well have died on those swampy shores. Suffering and hard work were not strangers to the colonists. By 1614. the settlers had a cash croptobaccoand they worked hard to see that it sustained the colony. To ensure order. they formed the House of Burgesses. the first representative assembly in America. Soon. every farmer in Virginia was granted 40 acres of land on which to farm tobacco. Still. they had little beyond that which they could get for themselves or the local Indians. It is hard today to fathom the courage of those who struggled against all to make the colony and their families a success. Today. 400 years later. we honor not just those brave people but the native Americans they encountered and the Africans who became indentured servants soon thereafter. I encourage all Americans to take a cue from the Queen of England and make the pilgrimage to Jamestown during this historic year. I encourage them to observe firsthand the hardships endured. the friendships forged. the commitment to something more than survivalthe courage to leave behind far more comfortable lives in England and take the chance of a lifetime. These were the first Americans in many senses. They were the first to form a government. the first to be willing to push past tradition and comfort for adventure. for fairness. for democracy. Thats why I am I proud to urge passage of H. Con. Res. 117.
Date: 2007-05-09
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. it is quite interesting to see that now it is important for the minority to pair with members from the majority party in order to be considered. that pairing with someone from the other side makes the denial of amendments to all Republican amendments apparently fair. Mr. Speaker. I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia
Date: 2007-05-09
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my friend. my colleague from California. for having admitted on the record that the new majority has seen fit during this Congress to pass one open rule. and that was on the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act. and I think thats important to be noted. Now. rules where there are requirements with having to print amendments before the debate begins are not open rules. even though our friends on the majority side have tried to redefine definitions. redraft definitions. But the reality of the matter is that there has been an admission on the floor that there has been one open rule with regard to a noncontroversial bill. and thats the fact. Now. why is that important? Because they were the party that campaigned on opening the process. So thats why its a relevant fact that there has been one open rule. Mr. Speaker. I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished friend. a great leader from Texas .
Date: 2007-05-09
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

I would like to thank Mr. CARDOZA. my good friend. and all those who have spoken during this debate. Mr. Speaker. I would like to reiterate my call for the defeat of this restrictive rule. It is an unfair rule. it is unnecessarily restrictive. and it closes down debate. For that reason. I urge the defeat of this rule. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2007-05-09
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. at this time. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security. Mr. KING.
Date: 2007-05-09
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. at this time. it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from *Oklahoma .
Date: 2007-05-09
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I oppose the rule. In the managers amendment adopted by the rule. the majority stripped out a number of commonsense amendments. mostly offered by Republicans. which would enhance homeland security. I think it is a regrettable turn of events which could cost the majority the support of many minority Members. I guess the good news here is that we know this bill may pass the House. but it is not going anywhere in the Senate. and in this form. it is unsignable by the President. But the rule also disallowed a critical amendment to help ensure that the Washington area would receive the necessary seniorlevel attention from the Department of Homeland Security so that Federal. State. and local governments are properly coordinating their homeland security activities. In 2002. whenwe established the Department of Homeland Security in a bipartisan manner. it created an Office of National Capital Region Coordination. To demonstrate the importance of this. we put it in the Office of the Secretary. Unfortunately. the administration decided in their reorganization to put this deep inside of FEMA. My amendment. which was not allowed. was pretty straightforward. It was to restore the office to its original and rightful place in the Office of the Secretary. This amendment would have passed with a large bipartisan majority. but it was not allowed by the other side. Now. why is this important? The events of 9/11 made it all too important that better coordination of first responders is needed in the D.C. region. with two States and the District of Columbia. 12 local jurisdictions. three branches of the Federal Government. 2.100 nonprofit organizations. thousands of businesses and nonprofit organizations. 4 million Americans. They want to put that responsibility into FEMA. It belongs in the Office of the Secretary. We have been through "tractor man." We have been through disruptions at the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. We have been through the snipers. This needs the highest Federal attention for coordination among all these different organizations in theregion. And they wouldnt allow this amendment. We are going to introduce this as a commonsense standalone bill. I hope it will receive the attention of this House. But in disallowing this amendment. now the other side takes ownership of this provision by putting their confidence in FEMA instead of the Office of the Secretary.
Date: 2007-05-09
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I come to this floor reluctantly- to oppose this rule. Why? Because it does everything that we ought not to do with respect to the committee process here. Now. if some people outside this Chamber wonder why the committee process is important or if it is important at all. well. if you look at the 9/11 Commission recommendations. one of the important recommendations they made was to have a single point of responsibility. a single point of oversight in this House for the Homeland Security Department. The very reason we creat ed the Homeland Security Department from about 22 other agencies and Departments was for the purpose of consolidating and giving direction to our response to a new threat to this country. In like .manner. here in the House of Representatives. the recommendation by the 9/11 Commission was that we have a primary committee to do that. And that is the Committee on Homeland Security. We have endeavored to work on a bipartisan basis. When we were in control 2 years ago. we did that. And now when the Democrats are in control. they are doing that. We had vigorous and open debate. We had a number of amendments adopted on the Republican side so that we pass this bill out of committee unanimously. not a dissenting vote. And we recognized that we were putting aside partisan differences to work for the best interest of this country. So now we come to the floor. and 50 percent of that bill has been ripped out by the managers amendment. It just happens to be that 50 percent is virtually all the product of Republican amendments that were adopted in committee on a bipartisan basis. And then they make in order about 22 amendments but not amendments that go to putting back into the bill what we put in there on a bipartisan basis. And virtually. not all. but most of the amendments in order are from Members who are not members of this committee. So you say. why is this being done? And we understand we are genuflecting to the jurisdictional disputes argued by already existing committees. So what we have done is. rather than following what the 9/11 Commission has said. we have made a worse situation. We not only have the already existing committees that the Homeland Security Department has to report to. They now report to us as well. Now. is this the efficient way? Is this the way you act when you are dealing with a serious problem? This ought to rise above all partisanship and all kinds of nonsense about jurisdiction of committees. I dont know how we can go home to our constituents and say. oh. yes. we got rid of that stuff that was really good that gave us an advantage in this war on terror because we were concerned about another committee that used to have jurisdiction. Last year one of the things we heard was just do the right thing and adopt all the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Adopting this rule flies in the face of that. We ought to understand that. We ought to vote down this rule. bring back the bill as it came out of the committee on a bipartisan basis. and then go forward on a bipartisan basis for the best for the American people.
Date: 2007-05-09
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. at this time. it is my pleasure to yield 4Y2 minutes to a distinguished colleague from North Carolina .
Date: 2007-05-09
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I will be asking for a "no" vote on the previous question so that I can amend this restrictive rule to make in order the amendment offered by Representative HAYES of North Carolina which would strike section 407 of the bill. the section requiring DHS to buy American textiles and apparel. protective gear. badges and ID cards. The amendment would instead require that DHS buy items specified in the amendment only when those items are connected to national security functions within the Department. This amendment also includes language to ensure that these provisions comply with the World Trade Organization rules. Mr. Speaker. this thoughtful amendment submitted by Mr. HAYES was unfortunately denied yesterday at the Rules Committee. If the previous question is defeated. the Hayes amendment would be made in order and the House would be able to have a full discussion on its merits. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
Date: 2007-05-09
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. my amendment will remove from this legislation a very dangerous and costly restriction on the governments ability to obtain protective gear. apparel and other materials that are critical to those charged with protecting our Nation. Is 9/11 already such a distant memory that we are willing to sacrifice the safety of those protecting our country in order to delude ourselves into believing we are saving jobs? Are there Members of this House who believe we should not be doing everything we can to make sure that our Customs Officers. our Border Patrol agents. our Air Marshals have the best protective gear. the best bulletproof vest. the best body armor available in the world when we go out and -purchase this for them? Wherever it is made. we want them to have the best. Make no mistake about it. a vote against my amendment is a vote to jeopardize the safety and security of the agents and officers protecting our country by restricting the sourcing and our ability to buy the best available around the globe. What is more. section 407 limits competition. which ends up driving up taxpayer costs. and it limits the Homeland Security Departments ability to obtain the best products to protect our homeland. Members should not be conned into thinking that domestic source restrictions. "Buy America." save jobs. Time and time again. these shortsighted restrictions have ended up costing us more American jobs than they save. as our trading partners then take retaliatory action against Americanmade goods and services that we sell abroad. We should remember that we are only 4 percent of the worlds consumers here in the United States. Pretty soon. with these kind of source restrictions on what America can buy and sell. we are going to be selling only to ourselves. Restrictions such as these jeopardize national security. do not make available to us the most modern technologies. the best body armor. the best May. 9.2007 bulletproof vests in the world.. The highest technology available in the world for ID cards could be eliminated under this amendment. It hamstrings market competition by eliminating who can bid on these contracts. it leads to higher prices and lower quality goods and services. and it wastes precious taxpayer dollars. I think by supporting homeland security. you should support our amendment to strike section 407. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2007-05-09
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. one of the difficulties in our procurement system today in government is that we try to reach too many competing policy goals in the way that we buy goods and services. When we use taxpayer dollars. when we take hardearned money from our taxpayers and the government needs a good or a service. our purpose ought to be to buy the best good and the best service and get the best value for our tax dollars. period. That is what we do when we buy our cars. That is what we do when we add additions to our home. The government should be subject to the same rules and regulations. In this particular case. there is no safety issue over where these materials may be made. That is a subterfuge. What this is is an attempt to try to protect American jobs in some ways. and of course. the end result is you lose them in others. But by reaching these competing goals in procurement through setasides. where we exclude parts of the economic system from bidding. this "Buy America" language is another effort another effort to restrict competition. We end up driving up costs for the taxpayers. We dont make use. many times. of the best technology. Although there is catchall language in this and other "Buy America" language that allows the Secretary to certify certain things. in point of fact. they dont work. They are reluctant to do that. and you end up many times with highercosting goods of the same order. That reduces our ability to use taxpayer dollars wisely. In a global economy. American taxpayers should get the benefit of the best value when we go out and use our dollars to buy goods and services. Restrictions on competition like this means that tax dollars are limited in their choices. Fewer choices means inferior products. It means greater costs. It means less competition. Section 407 of this legislation restricts competition. and it should be restricted. My amendment is endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. by the Information Technology Association of America as well. I think every taxpayer ought to be concerned about how their tax dollars are spent. Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the gentleman from North Carolina and his position in the area that he represents. but I just dont think these restrictive source provisions over the long term are in the American taxpayers interests. Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.