macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2007-10-31
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Madam Speaker. I rise today to speak on behalf of our Nations veterans. more than 100.000 of whom live in my congressional district. Madam Speaker. 138 days. ago. 41/2 months ago. this House passed the VeteransMilCon appropriations bill. and 55 days ago. the Senate passed their version. Since that time the party in control. the Democrats. have sat on their hands refusing to appoint conferees and take action to fund our Nations heroes. Leader BOEHNER has actually appointed conferees to the conference. and virtually every Republican Member has implored the Speaker to move forward. Our troops are too important to play political games. Just this past week. I heard from a woman in my district whose son is being treated in the spinal cord injury unit down in Tampa. Let me share with you that she is not a Republican. She is a dyedinthewool Democrat. Her comment to me was that she was ashamed that the increased appropriation that was in the very good bill that we passed here. she was ashamed that those funds have not yet been freed up. October 1 was the beginning of the Federal year. We have veterans in need of services. We have veterans in need of increased staffing at the various hospitals. Combining these bills clearly is an effort to have people vote on something that will come back and be certainly not what the American public wanted. You know. when your side won in November. Madam Speaker. I think Americans thought. oh. good. things will be done differently. They are not only not being done differently. they are being done worse than before. That is not what the American public wants. The American public wants to have our military funded. They want to have our veterans. whether it is from World War II. Korea. Vietnam. or those currently coming back from OIF and OEF. deserving to have goodquality care at the veterans hospitals. And to have that as a separate bill. not be held hostage.
Date: 2007-10-31
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I was sitting in my office calling back some constituents. It was 7:30. and first of all. they were surprised to hear from any Member of Congress calling them back at 7:30. but I am sure everyone here in this chamber does exactly that. And I saw you coming here to inform the American public about the truth. It is long overdue. Many of us in this Chamber had ads run against us. It was during that 2week period after the President vetoed the bill. Now. we could have been working on a compromise. but no. there had to be time out there for the operatives to run nasty ads against people who voted to not override the President. The President was right. This bill. the spending in the bill is out of control. It is out of control. and the American public started to catch on. Because when they started to attack me. you know. I have been called the mother of this bill. I wasnt in Congress at the time. But it was because I was willing to take that very difficult vote to
Date: 2007-10-31
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Many of the State programs actually had that language in there so that we wouldnt crowd out those who already had insurance and encourage them to get into the program. Many of the States had subsidies. premium subsidies so that people could stay in a family program so you didnt have to have one doctor for perhaps your 12yearold and another doctor for the mom and dad so that there could be a family. a true family doctor there because they all were covered by the same insurance company. The problem was over time many of the States stopped promoting that. So it was just easier to enroll the children in the State childrens health program. and in Florida we call it KidCare. That is an excellent point you bring up.
Date: 2007-11-01
Speaker: TIM MURPHY (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Pennsylvania

Mr. Speaker. this week Education Secretary Spellings released guidelines to clarify the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. but the current law does not go far enough to keep our campuses safe. Schools need to be able to talk with parents when they think a student is at risk for violence without fear that they are going to be sued. That is why I introduced H.R. 2220. the Mental Health Security for Families and Education. or the Mental Health SAFE Act. to allow universities to notify parents if a student is at risk of suicide or homicide- or assault. while holding schools harmless if they act in good faith. Schools should be focused on the safety of students. not fear of being sued if they do take action or sued if they dont take action. We need a law to protect students and parents. It is too late for Virginia Tech. it is too late for the many students who commit suicide or homicidal acts each year. It is not too late for other campuses. I ask my colleagues to please cosponsor the Mental Health SAFE Act. Lets work together to save lives.
Date: 2007-11-06
Speaker: MARIO DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Madam Speaker. yesterday the President of the United States. President Bush. honored eight outstanding individuals with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. One of those individuals was Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet. a political prisoner in Cuba. Dr. Biscet is a 46yearold physicialn and peaceful advocate of freedom and democracy. Dr. Biscet is an honest and decent man of principle who cites Martin Luther King. Jr.. Gandhi and the Dalai Lama as his role models. He has. dedicated his entire life to defending human rights and advancing.the cause of democracy in Cuba. And for that. Madam Speaker. in 2003. Dr. Biscet was sentenced to 25 years in prison and today sits in solitary confinement. in a totally darkened 3foot by 6foot cell commonly known there as "The Tomb." Dr. Biscet and hundreds.of other individuals just like him keepthe- hope for democracy alive for the Cuban people. Hes a true patriot. Madam Speaker. Hes a patriot for the Cuban people. a true hero and an examplefor everyone who loves freedom. I want to thank President Bush for once again standing With the Cuban people and making astrong statement fok freedom. I am in awe of Dr. Biscets .bravery. and I look forward to the daythat he can walk in. freedomi along with his people in his honor.
Date: 2007-11-06
Speaker: DAVID DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Tennessee

Madam Speaker. I rise today in support of our- American heroes. the men and women whohave served this great Nation. our veterans. On- June 15. the House passed. the Military Construction and Veterans Af-. fairs appropriations and. did not appoint conferees. The Senate passed the same in September. on September. 6.over .60 days ago. andthey immediately appointedconferees. This tactic of holding veterans funding hostage creates a dangerous precedent. The House is now faced with unrelated policies being- forced into this bill. Veterans funding is not a means of playing politics. Using our veterans and funding our next years election is unconscionable. - Fund the veterans. and lets move on to the next piece of legislation. Our focus should be on keeping our promises to our veterans and those who have served- so bravely. Madam Speaker. separate these bills.
Date: 2007-11-06
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Speaker. let us suppose that I went out to buy a new car today. and" I went to the dealer and I made a deal. saw exactly what I wanted. made an agreement on the price. and I called him up tomorrow and asked when it would be available. and I called him up the day after that. and I called him up the day after that. and after 140 days he finally said. you can come in and pick up your car. And when I went in to pick up the car he said. oh. by the way. we have this used car in the back that no one will buy. this clunker. this thing that wont work. and thats part of the deal. Now. you have to not only pay what its worth. but you have to pay $9.7 thousand additional dollars for it. Would you consider that fair? Would that be considered fair dealing? Would you really be concerned about the purchaser and what theyre purchasing. or would it. look like sharp practices? Would it look like kind of ropeadope? Would it look like a baitandswitch? What do we have here? We have a bill thats been waiting for 140 days for us to vote on that we have almost unanimous agreement on. and what are they doing? Theyre tying a clunker to it. Untie this. Madam Speaker. and allow us to get our business done.
Date: 2007-11-07
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in opposition to I.R. 3685. the Employment NonDiscrimination Act. and the rule that we have before us today. Primarily. Im opposed to the measures unclear Wbrding that could easily lead to wideranging and serious consequences. This bill would prohibit discrimination. which is a good thing. on extremely hardtodefine measures such as an individuals perceived characteristics. I think its the perception and the "perceived" language in here that is very troubling to me as a former small business owner.with up to 15 employees. It would be impossible for employers to operate a business while having to worry about being accused of mistreating someone based on the employees "perceived characteristics." This illconceived. vague language is nothing more than a golden ticket for Americas trial lawyers. This loose wording is also an invitation for accusations by disgruntled employees who want to take advantage of a poorly constructed law. Like all of my colleagues. I believe congressional policies should strive to promote a tolerant society. I believe many Members. including myself. would vote for it without the "perception" language in it. The gentleman from Massachusetts spoke before very eloquently. as he always does. and he said. our laws should not say that gay people are bad people. Thats not what this bill says. nor has any bill that has come before us ever said that. When people that I come in contact with begin to disparage individuals who may be gay. I point out to them that. you know. you dont know whether your Aunt Jen. our son Bill. your grandson Paul or your granddaughter may be gay. so its inappropriate. You know. its inappropriate to make disparaging comments about anyone who is gay because people really dont know the people around them. whether they are or whether theyre not. and its really none of their business. LI 1330 However. when that quest for intolerance in this bill ieads us.to costly and irresponsible ends. I think we must rethink the legislation. At a time when America faces so many challenges. the last thing Congress needs to be doing is finding a way to hand trial lawyersan avalanche of litigation to cash in on. I urge my colleagues to oppose this poorly drafted legislation. Lets go back to the drafting board with this.
Date: 2007-11-07
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H

of .jprsd I thank .4y fg.4 @.rcok.phank ey91wqV~jq.ISpeake1.?t_ xi f it L.: _dRhij gpal. Mr. Sppal .. of qui trade policy should be free trade among free peoples. And this agreement that we bring to the floor today. i think. is so important for many ways. If there is a nation that not only. is a -friend. -but that has withstood extraordinary challenges. including violence. terrorism. extraordinary attacks to its free institutions. it is our neighbor and our friend. Peru. And they have. the prior administration with President Toledo. now the administration of Pfesident Alan Garcia. they have repeatedly demonstrated that they wish to deepen their relations with the United States. that they wish to tie their economic future to the United States. And tonight is our opportunity to respond and say to our friend. Peru. we recognize the steps you have made. We recognize not only the goodfaith efforts that youve made to come to this agreement and to. by the way. renegotiate it after the political dynamic change. The situation changed here a year ago. and a renegotiation was required by the new leadership in this Congress of President Garcia. And the Peruvian Government demonstrated once again good faith and walked the extra mile to come to this agreement. This agreement is in the interest of the United States. of the workers in the United States. and its in the interest of Peru. When I say "free trade among free peoples." Mr. Speaker. I think its important to realize that peoples throughout the world should have an opportunity to raise their voices. to be heard. to form civil society. environmental groups. labor groups. to fight for their rights. to fight for their human rights. for their legal rights. In Peru. despite extraordinary challenges. there is freedom. and people can organize. as they can in the United States. in civil society. in environmental organizations and labor organizations and others to demand their rights and speak up when their rights are violated. Thats the great difference when we. for example. trade with a democracy with great challenges like India or a tyranny like. for example. Communist China. I always like to point out the difference. Free trade with free peoples. Tonight we enter into an agreement with a free people that is. in addition to being free. a great friend of the United States. So it is my privilege tonight to ask for our colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.
Date: 2007-11-07
Speaker: MARIO DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Speaker. I stand today to express my strong support for the Peru Free Trade Agreement. I am also a strong supporter of free trade with free nations. It is important to note that we already have a unilateral trade deal with Peru. That deal has helped Peru fix and help solve a big part of their poverty problem. It has helped stem the violence and the insurgency that were so prevalent there in.the 1980s. In the last decade. Peru has become one of fastest growing economies in Latin America. with a GDP growth of 8 percent last year. The United States is Perus number one trading partner. Enacting this bilateral trade preference will increase the number of American small- and mediumsized businesses that benefit from trade. More trade and more exports to this democratic neighbor means more jobs for American workers. Not only is Peru. Mr. Speaker. a strong trade partner.-it has become a strong partner fighting narcotrafficking and countering that antidemocratic sentiment that is fueled in the region by Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. It is in our national security interest to strengthen our ties with this strong democracy. this democratic ally. Again. Mr. Speaker. I support free trade with free. democratic nations. and I support free trade that is beneficial to American businesses and American workers and American jobs. That is why I am pleased that we are voting today to enact this vital trade agreement with this strong alJy in Latin America. I hope that this vote will lead to the swift enactment of the already negotiated trade deals with our other strong allies in Latin America. and those being Panama and Colombia.
Date: 2007-11-08
Speaker: FRED FIELDING (republican)
Chamber: S

Esq.. Office of the Counsel to the President. The White House. Washington. DC. DEAR MR. FIELDING: I have not received a reply to the letter I sent to you almost two weeks ago seeking a fuller accounting of this Administrations legal justifications and policies with regard to torture and interrogation. Another copy of my unanswered October 25. 2007. letter is enclosed. Over the past few days I have read in the press that there may. in fact. be three legal memoranda from the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel in 2005. not just two. that have been withheld from us. Apparently. the Administration has conceded the existence of three such memoranda in court filings this week. Without even an accounting from you and the Administration. it is impossible for me to know. As I have previously noted. the Committee does not yet have a complete picture of the Administrations historic position on the legal basis and standards for detention. transfer. and interrogation in connection with counterterrorism efforts. It is important that you share with the Senate Judiciary Committee all legal opinions on these issues from the Office of Legal Counsel and elsewhere in the Department of Justice and the Administration. I noted in my previous letter that you have not. despite our repeated requests. provided us with the 2005 memoranda that apparently authorize the use of combinations of cruel and extreme practices. We are fast approaching the oneyear anniversary of my November 15. 2006. request for "any and all Department of Justice directives. memoranda. and/or guidance . . . regarding CIA detention and/or interrogation methods." I regret that you did not take the opportunity created with the announced resignation of Alberto Gonzales to work with us to put these matters to rest. The first step would have been disclosure of the legal memoranda still being kept secret from the Senate Judiciary Committee. That has yet to occur. As you have recently witnessed. without these materials and a shared understanding of what the Administration has been doing. is doing. -its justifications. its legal analysis. and its purported basis for overriding our laws and treaty obligations. many Members of the Committee remain very concerned. Much of the controversy and discussion surrounding the Committees consideration of the Presidents nomination of Michael Mukasey to serve as Attorney General arose from these matters. The Administrations lack of cooperation greatly contributed to the controversy and ultimately to the opposition to that nomination. Sincerely.
Date: 2007-11-08
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 we can amend this rule and move toward passing a conference report on the bipartisan Military ConstructionVeterans Affairs Appropriations Act. As Mr. WICKER explained just a few minutes ago. the House passed the veterans and military funding bill on June 15 by a vote of 4092. with the Senate following suit and naming conferees on September 6. Unfortunately. the majority leadership in the House has refused to move the Military ConstructionVeterans Affaits appropriations bill. They have even refused to name conferees. Why has the majority decided to hold off on moving this bill that has such a bipartisan support? Well. according to several publications. including Roll Call. the majority intends to hold off sending appropriations bills to the President so that they can use an upcoming anticipated veto of the LaborHHS appropriations bill to serve as. and I quote. an extension of their successful public relations campaign on the SCHIP program. Unfortunately. that evidently political move failed yesterday when the Senate removed the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act from the LaborHHS bill. Recently. Republican Leader BOEHNER took a step toward naming House Republican conferees. Now the Speaker of the House must follow suit and take the steps necessary to ensure that work can begin on writing the final veterans funding bill that can be enaoted into law. Every day that the majority chooses not to act on this bill. our Nations veterans lose $18.5 million. Our veterans. Mr. Speaker. deserve better than partisan gamesmanship holding their funding back. I urge my colleagues to move this important legislation. to allow it to move. and oppose the previous question. Mr. Speaker. at this time I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
Date: 2007-11-08
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time. The bill that we have before us today is one that is not just about Florida. The bill that is before us today is about the availability of any State being able to participate if they form a catastrophic fund in their State. Whether it is hurricanes in Florida or earthquakes or perhaps wildfires in California. whatever the State wants to cover in their catastrophic fund is what would be covered. Let me point out also that this is purely voluntary. This isnt mandatory. We are not mandating States to participate. We are encouraging States to be responsible. Sometimes we tend to. especially at the Federal level. we tend to wait until something happens and then we react. Well. we all remember how many hurricanes hit. Hurricane Katrina. but other hurricanes also in 2005. As a matter of fact. in 2005. the Federal taxpayer alone paid $89.6 billion in postdisaster assistance. That is post disaster. That is after the fact. Wouldnt it be better to encourage States with some Federal backstop to work to have a plan there to plan and have the availabilityof a catastrophic � fund? I have served on the Financial Services Committee now. this is my third term. I have spent 5 years on the Financial Services Committee. I want to thank the gentleman who just walked in. Chairman BARNEY FRANK. who has worked in a very bipartisan manner to help get this bill in the form that it is today. Ifater we will be seeing the managers amendment. I certainly want to thank Representatives KLEIN and MAHONEY and their great staffs and also Annie Woeber from my staff. who -I think lives. eats. drinks and breathes tis issue.