macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2002-02-12
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Madam Speaker. I rise today to pay tribute to my friend and former colleague from Virginias Seventh Congressional District. Tom Bliley. and also to support H.R. 1748. to designate the U.S. Post Office on Glen Burnie Road in Richmond. Virginia. in the chairmans honor. This represents an important way of saluting his service to the Commonwealth and to the country. Mr. Bliley served as chairman to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for three terms ending in 2000. He was handpicked by thenSpeaker Gingrich over more senior Members. and his agenda during those 6 years was quite simply to promote commerce. As chairman. Mr. Bliley was a pragmatist. willing to broker deals behind doors with ideological friends and foes alike. As a result. the committee became one of the most constructive in Congress. promoting free and fair markets. standing for consumer choice and commonsense safeguards for our health and our environment. and keeping a watchful eye on the Federal bureaucracy. The pleasant. softspoken mortician. once dubbed in a magazines cover story as the most influential funeral director on Earth. started his political career in 1968 when civil leaders sought him to run for the Richmond City Council. He served the city for almost a decade. not only on the council. but also as vice mayor. and then becoming mayor until 1977 when he retired to devote more time to his funeral home business. However. the chairman was not out of politics for long. He enthusiastjcally reentered when Democrat David Satterfield announced his retirement from Congress in 1980. Since his first election to Congress. the chairman was recognized by many organizations for his work. He served in various roles with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. From November of 1994 to October of 1998. he was chairman of its economic committee. and in November 1998. he became one of four Vice Presidents. and with the resignation of its President in 2000 of May. the chairman became acting President. His commitment to balancing the Federal budget earned him the National Watchdog of the Treasurys "Golden Bulldog Award" every -year since 1981. He was named a Guardian of Small Business by the NFIB. He has been called the most powerful Virginian since Harry Byrd. and the National Journal cited him as Mr. Smooth. Madam Speaker. I join with my fellow Virginia colleagues in honoring Tom Bliley. thanking the chairman for his service to our Commonwealth and to our Nation. He has been a friend and mentor to me and many others. His presence in this Chamber has been missed. and I urge passage of this bill.
Date: 2002-02-13
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I was actually a little taken aback by my friend. the previous speaker. when she talked about the voice of the.people not being heard because of all this soft money in politics. The fact of the matter is when you collate elections. you will find out that the more money that gets spent on campaigns. whether it is on the ground or on the air. it drives up the turnout. not lowers turnouts. We can show you election after election where you have bigger spending campaigns and it drives turnout and voter interest and you get better penetration with the electorate. So I think that issue does not wash. This legislation is not about candidates. It really does not affect the way most individuals will run their own race or raise money as Members of Congress. What it does is affects political parties. If you believe as I do that political parties have been a very. very important part of the American political system. have. in fact. strengthened American democracy. a two party system in my judgement is something that has stabilized American democracy and keeps us much different from other countries. This drives a lot of money away from the political parties and puts them out into the system to interest groups. basically the right and the left. Political parties tend to center the American political debate. which I think is a good thing. For moderation. this legislation is the death knell because instead of candidates. independent members within each party being able to appeal to their political party. they have to appeal to interest groups to help make up funding gaps that may occur in these particular elections. But what concerns me the most is the bait and switch we see in this legislation before us. Written under the dead of night. we see a new substitute. ShaysMeehan IV. V. VI. I do not kn6w which number this is. I refer specifically to title IV. severability effective date. section 402 section B(1) where it says. "Prior to January 1. 2003 the committee." meaning the political party committees. NRCC. DCCC. "can spend funds for retiring outstanding debts or obligations incurred prior to such effective date. so long as the debts were incurred solely in connection with an election date on or before November 5. 2002." What this means is under this legislation which displaces existing legislation pertaining to this. and there is no other language in this substitute that would replace the language in existing law. it means that political parties could borrow hard dollars in this years election cycle and replace them with soft dollars that they could raise. So soft dollars can basically pay for harddollar borrowing. This is exactly opposite of what this legislation is intended to do. I do not know if the authors understand what is written in this. We have counsel opinions that we will enter into the RECORD later.
Date: 2002-02-13
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Reclaiming my time. one could use their building fund which is specifically protected under this to collateralize a loan which is soft dollars. which can collateralize a loan and come back and pay it back. That is what we can do under this legislation. I will be happy to have further discussions with the gentleman. I hope it is his intent to say that hard dollars have to be replaced with hard dollars. And I hope that we can get additional statements on the record. But this language does not say that. -
Date: 2002-02-13
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. a statement was made earlier that Trevor Potter has now disowned. For clarification. and this is the Website that I would ask be included in the RECORD. the Website makes it very clear that it does not make reference to contributions or expenditures. in other words. that the Federal dollars goes along with what the gentleman just said. Trevor Potter is a trustee of the organization. It may appear that he is now disowning the statement of the organization of which he is on the letterhead. There is just a lot of doubletalk going on around here today. It looks to me like an honest drafting error. hut it is a very serious error that changes the rule of the game that allows unlimited amounts of soft money to be spent as Federal dollars in this election cycle. and it is currently illegal.
Date: 2002-02-13
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. let me say just a few months ago we sat in this body and the advocates at that point said that this bill needs to be passed- now. that we could not delay it. we wanted to get it ready for the -next cycle. Now just a few months later. instead of being ready for the 2002 cycle and because the campaign committee on the other side of the aisle has been unable to raise hard dollars and retire thei hard dollar debt and they have looked at the discrepancy between the committees. they want the rules to be delayed in implementation until the next election. Why? So they can spend their soft dollars this year. So they can trade their soft dollars this year for hard dollars under the loophole that has been discovered in the drafting. It reminds me of the old drunk who swears he is going to quit drinking tomorrow but tonight he is going to get real drunk and tie it down. That is what they are doing.
Date: 2002-02-13
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I do not believe I was quoted as saying that. Tonight this substitute is not fair. It is not bipartisan. It is written to gain the current system. Their leadership on the other side woke up and found they had a huge harddollar gap. If my colleagues reject this substifute. remember this. those who signed the petition: if my colleagues reject the substitute. we are down to the base bill. That is the bill my colleagues signed the discharge petition for. They have not lost anything. This substitute was unveiled for the first time last. evening at 10 p.m. That is when the public. that is when the opposition got to see it. and as we can see. drafting errors occur sometimes when people do these things at the last. moment. and I think that is the problem that we have here. The underlying bill would still stand if this substitute is rejected. I oppose this legislation as it is now being amended again. I say to my friends who signed the discharge petition. if my colleagues reject this and beat this they have still the underlying bill. That is what they signed the discharge petition for and we can go on amendments from there.
Date: 2002-02-13
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. if I could say to my friend. I understand that was part of the process. but he has to understand that nobody knew- when they signed the petition what this amendment would be. what this substitute would be. and so for many members who signed the petition. if they do not like this. they can be consistent with signing this petition and vote against this substitute. That is the only point. I would say my friend and honorable gentleman who has offered this. I think. is most sincere.
Date: 2002-02-13
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I think the gentleman from Connecticut has made it clear this is not offered as a gutting amendment. This is in fact harmonious with a similar Senate version. but I think a much better version. This gets around the Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo that basically said millionaire candidates can spend as much money as they want on behalf of their own campaigns. while the rest of us are limited in what we can raise by the Federal election law. This relaxes those laws that will allow parties to come in relaxing their contributory limits to candidates. and also the way we raise money. This evens the playing field for candidates who are challenging millionaires or who are challenged by millionaires. the individual who can go to McDonalds. have breakfast with himself. write himself a $3 million check and have the largest fundraising breakfast in history. This would allow us the tools to be able to go and compete fairly with them. So I think I applaud the gentlewoman for her amendment in this case. I think it makes a bad bill better. I think it is a problem that is in existing law. It does not exist because of the ShaysMeehan bill. this is a problem in existing law. And I think this is an appropriate remedy. and I would urge my colleagues to support it.
Date: 2002-02-13
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment. Mr. Chairman. addresses the rights of veterans of this Nation. As a 29year Air Force veteran and prisoner of war who had my freedom stripped away for many years. nearly 7. I am appalled that anyone would try to take away the rights of any American. especially those who put their lives in harms way to defend our Constitution and this Nation. Let us not forget that between 1940 and 1947. over 16 million Americans signed up to stand with their country against the forces of fascism and tyranny. Over 400.000 never returned. Let us not forget that a decade later. almost 7 million Americans served in the Korean War. and 55.000 ended up giving up their lives. Throughout the conflicts. from the Revolutionary War to Vietnam. Desert Storm. and now Afghanistan. let us not forget that more than 42 million brave men and women have answered the call to protect our freedom. and today more than 25 million of those brave souls are still alive in this country wanting their freedom. Veterans understand that freedom is not free. and I think everyone in here knows that. Those men and women fought and defended this Nation for us to be able totand here on this floor today and talk. It must be defended again. Would anyone disagree with this? I do not think so. Is there anyone who would deny a veterans right to be heard or the right to hear what affects them? After all. veterans issues are not Republican issues. They are not Democrat issues either. Veterans issues are not liberal. they are not conservative. Veterans issues are American issues. They have the right to talk about them. and we have an obligation to listen to them. Veterans issues are about defending our country. providing quality health care and protecting Social Security. We must not silence the men and women who have fought and died to keep America free. I need a vote for this amendment. We need to vote for veterans. Let me just tell you that our veterans today are over there in Afghanistan protecting the freedoms of America and the freedom of the world. We are doing everything we can to provide them the sustenance. the equipment. the best training possible. and we have the besttrained men and women in the world. They are going to protect us and our rights. and we need to protect them and their right to free speech. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2002-02-13
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I kind of agree with the gentleman. but if we take away their right to speak. we are not ever going to get that fixed. Mr. Chairman. I yield 12 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
Date: 2002-02-13
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona . a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Date: 2002-02-13
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. I think the gentleman is absolutely correct. and I happen to agree with the gentlewoman over there. I think we should do something for our veterans. I think that is atrocious that they have doubled or tripled that cost. I think that is the best reason I can think of why we should not subjugate the veterans of the United States of America. past. present. future. to some unconstitutional law that we are trying to pass tonight. This amendment will fix that for our veterans now and in the future. Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2002-02-13
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I think there is a misunderstanding on this side of the aisle over how this money could be used if it were not utilized for building money. The bulk of this money in both parties campaign funds come from contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. These are federally chartered organizations. and the only contributions they give parties has to be used for building funds. It could never be used under existing law for campaign ads. So when we say it could be or better be used. I do not think we understand the nature of this money and the nature of the limitations that it has under the law. I just wanted to clarify that. This money has to be used for building under current law. Unless we change this on motion to recommit. we would be allowing it to pay off a soft dollar debt.
Date: 2002-02-13
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. just to understand. building fund dollars are dollars that come for the most part from two organizations. Those monies cannot be used for ads. They can only be used for buildings. If this money does not fail. before November 5. both party committees would have to use that money to buy buildings or equipment. That is the way it would work. But they could not be used in ads. I just wanted to clarify that.
Date: 2002-02-13
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. let me understand the accounting. I know this as chairman of our committee. and my colleagues committee operates separately. We have several different funds that we keep at both committees. There are harddollar funds. Federaldollar funds. Then there are three softmoney accounts. There is a corporate softdollar account. a personal softdollar account that could be spent differently in different States. Then there is a buildingfund softdollar account. Those moneys are. for the most part. I mean. 90plus percent. moneys that are earmarked from corporations. particularly Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae. who have restrictions on the dollars they can give. They have given millions of dollars through the years. and I think we ought to just get to spend it. This is not a poison pill amendment. This amendment I think is a free vote for Members. but it is a special carve out. and I just call that to Members attention.
Date: 2002-02-27
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. despite my deep respect for the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I have to rise today to voice my continued opposition to H.R. 1542. the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act. and my opposition to allow efforts such as the amendment offered by my good friend. the gentleman from Indiana . which claimed to resolve the concerns put forward over -the past year by myself and other Members regarding the anticompetitive impact of the legislation. Both H.R. 1542 and the BuyerTowns amendment kill competition. plain and simple. A vote for either of them is a vote against the competitive environment that we set out to create when we passed the Telecommunications Act in 1996. Litigation brought competition to the long distance market. and similarly the 1996 act marked our recognition that innovation stimulated by competition was critical to bringing advanced technologies and services to the local market and. therefore. to constimers. Remember that DSL broadband technology has been available to Bell companies since the mid1980s. It .is only with the passage of the 1996 act and the resulting threat of competition that we actually saw DSL being deployed. The act prescribed this recipe for local telecom competition through a carefully crafted dynamic that gives competitors access to the local network. an infrastructure built by nearly a century of guaranteed monopolistic profits. and in return the act deregulated the regional Bell companies by allowing them to compete in the long distance market from which they had been barred under the 1984 antitrust settlement with AT&T. The strategy was simple and should remain so: offer the Bell companies an incentive to open their local monopolies so that conditions for market competition in the local loop will flourish and prices will drop. That incentive is deregulation. At this time. the incumbent carriers possess monopolistic control over 90 percent of their markets nationwide. Clearly. competition in the local markets targeted by the 1996 act has not yet arrived. Unfortunately. H.R. 1542 and the BuyerTowns amendment each accomplish the same objective. They irrevocably defeat the purpose of the 1996 act by destroying the efforts made since then to bring competition to the local telecommunications market. With little competition in the space that brings wire digital services into homes and businesses. there will be no competitors or forced markets to push the widespread and competitive provision of broadband markets. I urge my colleagues to vote to retain competition. ensure that competitors have a chance to compete under the same rules that have promoted competition for the last 6 years. Let us be clear: the BuyerTowns amendment destroys that framework. The CannonConyers amendment. on the other hand. keeps that competition alive. Vote "no" on BuyerTowns. and "yes" on the CannonConyers amendment.
Date: 2002-02-28
Speaker: JO ANN DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Government Reform be discharged from further consideration of the concurrent resolution recognizing the significance of Black History Month and the contributions of black Americans as a significant part of the history. progress. and heritage of the United States. and ask for its immediafe consideration.
Date: 2002-02-28
Speaker: JO ANN DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. House Concurrent Resolution 335 expresses the sense of Congress that the contributions of black Americans are a significant part of the history. progress. and heritage of the United States and that the ethnic and racial diversity of the United States enriches and strengthens the Nation. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in honor and acknowledgment of Black History Month. a great tradition honoring and celebrating black Americans. This 74year tradition seeks to broaden our vision of the world. the legacy of black Americans in our Nations history. and their role in our Nations future. I commend the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma for introducing this important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker. the -first black Americans were brought to these shores as early as the 17th century. These black Americans and subsequent generations were enslaved and brought to America against their free will. Despite this setback. early black Americans made their mark in the economic. educational. political. artistic. literary. scientific. and technological advancement of the United States. Black Americans have also contributed to protecting the Nations security and freedom through service in the Armed Forces. In addition. they have built many of the Nations strongest faithbased institutions which serve the Nations poorest citizens. strengthen the Nations moral code. and uplift its spirits. Mr. Speaker. it is important that we stand today and recognize the achievements of black Americans. Their heritage and history are invaluable learning tools to the people of our great Nation. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Date: 2002-02-28
Speaker: JO ANN DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speake. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 335.