macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2006-09-26
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. just in reference to comments that were made several times by people on the other side of the aisle that this would cover a cab driver or bus driver. I would hope that they would look at the language of the bill. It says whoever knowingly transports a minor across State line with the intent that the minor obtain an abortion. and thereby in fact abridges the right of a parent. So that is not just someone who gives them transportation. someone who intentionally brings them across a State line with the intent that they obtain an abortion. Mr. Speaker. since merely identical legislation passed the House in April 2005 by a vote of 270157. there have been several developments that make it clearer of the need to pass this bill. First. a Pew Research Center poll found that large majorities in all religious groups and about twothirds of nonchurchgoers believe girls under 18 should receive parental consent before an abortion. According to the Pew Research Center poll. as has been the case for more than a decade. most of the public favors requiring women under -ge 18 to obtain the consent of at least one parent before being allowed to get an abortion. Nearly threequarters of Americans support such a requirement. while just 22 are opposed. The point I make on this is that this bill is not out of the mainstream. This bill is right in the mainstream. This bill is to allow the enforcement of State laws that are constitutional with respect to parental notification. To evade parental notification laws by means of taking a young girl across a State line is what this bill is aimed at. Nothing more. nothing less than that. It is appropriate. It is consistent with the vast majority of people in the United States. It is consistent with the 33 States in the Union that have enacted such legislation. What it does is it requires intent on the part of the actor. that is. they must intentionally act to evade the law in order to assist ini procuring an abortion for a young person in aState where notification is required. Nothing more. nothing less.
Date: 2006-09-26
Speaker: JO ANN DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. although the Rules of the House of Representatives do not allow me to cosponsor H.R. 5835. the Veterans Identity and Security Act of 2006. I wish to express my full support for this bill. My district is home to tens of thousands of veterans from every branch of the military. and this legislation will be extremely helpful to my constituents. The recent loss of data affecting over 26.5 million current and former service members was extremely unfortunate. and it became clear that the Departments data security and notification practices needed an overhaul. I believe this legislation will enable the Department of Veterans Affairs to better protect the personal identification data of those who have served and are serving our country. and I am pleased that we are taking steps to prevent these incidents in -the future. As our countryincreasingly relies on electronic information storage and communication. it is imperative that our Government amend our informatiop security laws accordingly. This legislation will help in this effort. and I am wholeheartedly supportive.
Date: 2006-09-27
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the rule. Listening to the debate. it is very interesting. The gentlewoman from New Yorks description of our treatment of captured alleged terrorists was astonishing. As a matter.of fact. after listening to her litany of complaints.. President Chavezs comments at the United Nations appear mild. We have not violated the rights of individuals. This bill creates a fair and orderly process to detain and prosecute al Qaeda members and others captured during the war on terror. We extend more %rights to these individuals than our POWs would ever expect under the Geneva Accords. And the suggestion raised by another Member on the other side. that somehow we are violating hundreds of years of precedent. is absolutely wrong. We are not talking about the great writ that is found in the Constitution. the great writ of habeas corpus. We are talking about a statutory writ. which the Supreme Court has said time and time again Congress has the right to create. Congress has the right to constrict. Congress has the right to eliminate. We do not just leave these people devoid of an opportunity for appeal. Rather. we set up a mechanism where an appeal can go to a single court. the District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. so that we can avoid the violations of justice that take place by the abuse of habeas corpus by some already involved. Besides. we already made this decision in this Congress a year ago. What this does is say to the Supreme Court. we meant what we said when we passed the law a year ago which said this should apply to people already in Guantanamo. That was our intent. Unfortunately. the Supreme Court believed it not to be found in the language. This makes it clear that what we said a year ago we say again. only we say -to the Supreme Court. "This time we really mean it. Please follow it." It is not a violation of any rights. It extends more rights to these people than they are allowed under any other regime of law in the world. and any nonsense spoken on this floor to suggest otherwise ought to be rejected in whole and in part. We ought to support this rule and support this bill.
Date: 2006-09-27
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of this important legislation. Is it perfect? No. Do we have an obli�gation to pass it? Yes. It is very important that this Congress passes it as soon as possible. First of all. the most important thing that this legislation does. that it accomplishes. is that it protects our troops and intelligence officers. Sources and methods of intelligence gathering are protected. The security of this country. the American people. thus and for many other reasons. the security of this country is protected and is enhanced by this legislation. And that is the most important ingredient. I believe. in this legislation. Secondly. it conforms with the rule of law. including international law. specifically common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Ad hoc courts are not acceptable. And what is necessary is established by this legislation. regularly constituted courts established by law. with judgments appealable to the Federal appellate court in the District of Columbia. The rule of law is satisfied by this legislation. It is a very delicately balanced legislation. that while satisfying our obligations under the Geneva Conventions. at the same time it protects the methods and sources of gathering intelligence and our intelligence officers and the troops in the field. IThis is very important legislation. It is important that the Congress pass it as soon as possible. I strongly support it and urge its passage.
Date: 2006-09-27
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Speaker. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker. today the regulation of the surplus lines market is fragmented and very cumbersome. Insurers and brokers who want to provide insurance across State lines are subject to a myriad of different State tax and licensing requirements. Oftentimes these regulations will conflict. making it virtually impossible for one company to comply with all of them. This situation leaves policyholders underinsured and with little choice in providers. Moreover. most of the policyholders who have purchased insurance in the nonadmitted market do so every *day. These very sophisticated commercial entities have educated risk advisers on staff with a thorough understanding of the market and their risk exposure. Yet most States require that these experts be denied coverage from multiple providers before they are allowed to purchase insurance in the nonadmitted market. The reinsurance market faces additional obstacles because some State regulators are taking it upon themselves to throw out arbitration agreements between reinsurance providers and primary carriers. These are contractual agreements decided upon by sophisticated parties on both sides of the transaction to settle disputes without tying up the courts. Accordingly. the bill that we have before us today. H.R. 5637. specifies that only the tax policies and licensing regulations of the State in which the policy holder is domiciled will govern the transaction. It also requires States within 2 years of the bills passage to participate in the National Association of Insurance Commissioners National Insurance Producer Database and to adopt regulations under NAICs Nonadmitted Insurance Model Act. The bill allows sophisticated commercial entities direct access to the surplus lines market withtout going through the multiple denial process. It also prohibits States from voiding established contractual arbitration agreements between reinsurers and primary companies. Policyholders in a number of States are facing skyrocketing rates. With these obstacles already impeding affordability. adding a quagmire of inefficient State rules certainly does not help. Additionally. with reinsurance rates rising at an alarming rate. companies should be encouraged to stay out of the courts and to follow their own voluntarily entered into arbitration agreements. This bill provides commonsense solutions to the nonadmitted and reinsurance market. I want to thank certainly Chairman OXLEY. who will be very much missed. not only by the committee. but by this entire body. certainly Representative MOORE and the other Members who .5igned onto this very bipartisan bill. as well as Mr. BAKER. for their leadership on this very important issue. I -urge members to vote in favor of H.R- 5637.
Date: 2006-09-27
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Speaker. when companies like WorldCom and Enron continued to enjoy highrated bonds just days before they declared bankruptcy. something was wrong with the system. Congress has taken great strides in ensuring that the corporate scandals these companies precipitated will not happen again. and improving the agencies that rate them is yet another important step. I was not in Congress when the Enron and WorldCom scandals erupted. but I still regularly hear from constituents who lost a great deal of their retirement packages because of these criminals. Listen up America. If Congress cannot improve investor confidence in other corporations. many more constituents will have difficulty planning for their retirement as well. Lets kill the duopoly. and that is what this bill does. I thank Mr. FITZPATRICK for his leadership on credit rating agency reform. Without his hard work. we could not go home to our districts with the confidence that we are doing what we can to protect our constituents hardearned savings. I urge members to support S. 3850 to help ensure that the credit rating agencies are working as they should. providing reliable evaluations of corporations on which so many retirees rely.
Date: 2006-09-27
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill to amend the National Housing Act to increase the mortgage amount limits applicable to FHA mortgage insurance for multifamily housing located in highcost areas.
Date: 2006-09-27
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.
Date: 2006-09-27
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Speaker. I yield myself the balance of our time. Madam Speaker. I want to once again thank my good friend. BARNEY FRANK. He worked with me in introducing this legislation. We worked it through the system. It is before -us today. I would also like to thank a very good chairman of the Financial Services Comfnittee. MIKE OXLEY. He had a vision when he took over the committee. He worked diligently to accomplish that vision. I wish him the best in his retirement. I know we are going to miss him next year when the committee starts again.
Date: 2006-09-28
Speaker: JO ANN DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of my resolution. H. Res. 748. recognizing the 225th anniversary of the American and French victory at Yorktown. Virginia. during the Revolutionary War. I am very proud to represent Americas First Congressional District. While next year my district will be host to the 400th anniversary celebration of the founding of Jamestown. this month marks another significant anniversary in our Nations history: the victory at Yorktown. It is a privilege every year on October 19 to celebrate Yorktown Day. The Revolution secured independence for the United States and significantly changed the course of world history. The American Revolution took place from Maine to Florida and asfar west as Arkansas and Louisiana. but it was Yorktown battlefield that saw the final battle of the American Revolution. with the surrender of General Cornwalliss British army to General George Washingtons AmericanFrench allied army in October. 1781. By the end of September. 1781. Washingtons army of 17.600 Continental soldiers and French allies had surrounded Cornwallis 8.300 British. German. and Loyalist troops and laid siege to Yorktown. leading to the surrender of Cornwallis on October 19. 1781. And my colleague from Illinois said it best when he quoted Prime Minister Frederick Lord North when he said. "Oh. God. its all.over." The allied victory at Yorktown effectively ended the war. -In 1931. Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur. Secretary of the Interior. commented. "To declare independence is one thing. to achieve it is another. Here it was actually achieved . . . The victory at Yorktown gave us that independence which the American patriots had boldly proclaimed to the world." Mr. Speaker. it is that independence that we so cherish and enjoy here in the United States of America today. It is our freedoms that our wonderful men andwomen in the military continue to fight for today. and it started back in 1781"with the victory at Yorktown. Mr. Speaker. with that. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution honoring a significant historical event in our Nations history.
Date: 2006-09-28
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct. not because I disagree with the intent of the gentleman from Mississippi nor the other speakers on the other side. but rather. lets not screw up a good deal. We have worked very hard on a bipartisan basis to bring forth a major piece of legislation dealing with an area of the country that needs to be addressed. and that is port security. The name of the bill is the Safe Ports Bill. The Senate retained our number. retained the name. the guts of our bill is in this conference report that I believe we will complete before the end of today. And if we instruct conferees in this regard. frankly. we complicate the effort to reach a final conclusion. I am concerned about the area of rail and mass transit security. As a matter of fact. I held a hearing in our subcommittee today at the request of the ranking member. Ms. SANCHEZ. and the ranking member of the full committee.
Date: 2006-09-28
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. and I note the gentleman from Floridas fondness for quoting Benjamin Franklin. It is interesting the debate we are engaged in today is not a new debate. because there has always been debate about the tension that has been developed or actually written into the Constitution among the three branches of government dealing with difficult issues like this. And while the gentleman from Florida commended us to a conversation by the esteemed Founding Father Benjamin Franklin. I would give him another one. In 1776. Benjamin Franklin and the other four members of the Committee on Secret Correspondence explained their unanimous decision not to tell their colleagues in the Continental Congress about a sensitive U.S.French covert operation by writing: "We find. by fatal experience. that Congress consists of too many Members to keep secrets." There was a tension that they understood at that time. and there is a tension that naturally resides in this because of the unique character of the President as Commander in Chief and his ability to ferret out foreign intelligence. So the question is how do we try and deal with that tension? I would suggest to my colleagues that the fact that we have not had an attack since 2001 on U.S. soil is something for which we can all be thankful. but safer does not mean there is any room for complacency. As the events in Bali. Madrid. and London on 77 indicate. we are still at war with an enemy that is fully devoted to one thing: the murder of innocent people. specifically Americans. men. women. and children. And in this effort to protect our citizens. the daunting task before us is to thwart the efforts of an enemy who operates underground by stealth and deception and at the same time not rip up our Constitution. This is made all the more difficult. in that. unlike traditional criminal cases. our success will be measured by the ability to prevent a future terrorist attack. This requires an ongoing assessment of how best to equip law enforcement and the intelligence community with the tools to respond to an enemy who is constantly morphing. In meeting this challenge. intelligence is the necessary bridge to successful homeland security protection. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is. therefore. an essential and critical tool in our efforts to protect the American people. But one aspect of this challenge requires us to try and ensure that any gaps between the state of law and technology are closed to prevent their exploitation by a lethal enemy. In this regard. this bill before
Date: 2006-09-29
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for the time. Mr: Speaker. let me make clear. first of all. the distinguished ranking member of the full committee referred to the first page of the bill. but he needs to go on further. to section 948b subsection (a). which defines the purpose of the military tribunals. where it says: "This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants." So where initially he referred to the definition of unlawful enemy combatants. this bill refers to "alien" unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the U.S. So you cant pick up just anybody in the United States. Section 948a(3) defines an alien as a person who is not a citizen of the United States. Therefore. the language of the bill before us precludes the use of military commissions to try citizens of the U.S. Second. the limitations on habeas corpus also only apply to alien enemy combatants. By its very terms. section 7 says that "no court. justice. of judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly- detained . . . " Therefore. under the expressed terms of the bill. an American citizen will have the unencumbered ability to challenge his or her detention as they have under the Constitution. So lets not confuse it. Lets read all sections of the bill. We are dealing with. as the bill says. "alien unlawful enemy combatants." those people who are not in uniform. those people who are not following the rules of international law with respect to war. those people who hide behind women and children. those people who use the very fact that they are not identified as "legal combatants" to try to kill and maim Americans around the world. That is what this tribunal is set up for. and to give them more rights than they would have virtually anywhere else and in any other system. as articulated by the chairman of the full committee. So lets not confuse the facts.
Date: 2006-09-29
Speaker: JIM GIBBONS (republican)
Chamber: H

JIM GIBBONS. also brought a great deal of background and expertise to our committee. As a fighter pilot who worked the Desert Storm I operation and who understands tactical aircraft as well or better than any member of the Armed Services Committee or the full House. JIM GIBBONS brought a special insight to our committee. He also brought a great love for the National Guard and has been a great and powerful advocate for them. I know he is going to continue to do that in his new role. But JIM GIBBONS. like JOEL HEFLEY. is one of those quality guys that you just enjoy working with and you know when he comes to the job every day. he cares about the service. he cares about the people that wear the uniform. There is a real joy in working on this committee. Mr. Speaker. and those gentlemen are people that every one in this House likes to work with and understands the value added that they bring every time they walk into this Chamber or into the committee room. So our many. many thanks to them. With that. Mr. Speaker. I would like to listen to my great colleague. who had a great taste in coats today because we came with exactly the same outfits here. Mr. SKELTON. the fine gentleman from Missouri. has done a wonderful job working on this bill. Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2006-09-29
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that. And I thank the gentleman for his opposition. The. fact is that. you have the whole Lone Star State delegation backing a bill to repeal that outdated Wright amendment. Back in 1979. Congress created that law. Look at there. That is what those stewardesses were wearing in those days. That is where we were from. and today is a victory for freedom and free enterprise. That was 1979. People had mood rings. Rubiks cubes. smiley face stickers. and pet rocks. Just like this picture. so much has chahged since 1979. but the Wright amendment never did. I want to commend. officials in north Texas who worked tirelessly to craft a local compromise that works for all parties involved. For Texans. the traveling public. we are making history. It is not perfect. In my opinion. it doesnt do the job fast enough. But there is -one thing I have learned in the peoples House: you have got to give a little to get a little. Here. compromise can save the day. and it gives me great pleasure to come into the 21 century and cast my vote to end the outdated Wright amendment once and for all.