macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2008-02-13
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Speaker. I listened closely to the words of my friend from Maryland just a moment ago. and I want to assure him that I do have selfrespect and I have respect for this institution. I would not.have returned here after a 16year absence if I had any other feeling. But I returned to this place because of the aftermath of 9/11. feeling that those of us who thought we might make a contribution to the defense of this Nation in whatever way we could ought to do that. And based on that. I will have to tell you. this issue is probably one of the two or three most important issues that I have dealt with since I returned to this institution. We cannot and we will not continue to protect the American people if we are absent that kind of quality intelligence that is necessary for us to be able to figure out what the threat is and to figure out what the threat isbefore that threat is acted upon by the enemy. That is why this is so important. And integral to our being successful in doing that is being able to ask for assistance by those who have in their power to give assistance. That is why it is so important. the matter the gentleman from Maryland referred to. the question of whether or not we would grant immunity to those companies who said yes when the American Government came to them in the aftermath of 9/11 and said we need your help. Without your help. it is impossible for us to get that kind of information that we will be able to utilize to be able to prevent another 9/11. Now. the gentleman from Maryland said we havent had enough time. I would suggest as one of the 19 members of the Judiciary Committee. I was given the opportunity. as were Members on your side of the aisle. to review that material that you say we havent had for a long enough period of time. Interestingly enough. we have had 1 day short of 3 weeks to look at that material. So what makes anybody think if we are given 3 more weeks. 3 more weeks. that the majority side will say that is enough? The gentleman from Maryland says he doesnt support the Protect America Act. but we are being asked on the floor to extend it for 3 more weeks. The gentleman from Maryland says just 3 more weeks. The vast majority of Members on your side of the aisle voted against it. So how do we get to a majority position in this House dealing with that necessity of gaining this information while protecting the civil liberties of our fellow citizens? Maybe it is instructive to look at the letter dated January 28 signed by 21 Members of your side of the aisle asking the Speaker of the House to allow us to vote on. what. the very bill passed by the Senate yesterday. The very bill passed by the Senate yesterday was the subject of the letter by 21 Members of your side of the aisle. If you add those Members to our side of the aisle. that is a majority. Allow us to vote on that up or down. Allow the majority will of this House to be done.
Date: 2008-02-13
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to speak in support of the National Salute to Hospitalized Veterans Week. The Department of Veterans Affairs facilities care for over 98.000 veterans every day. The veteran organizations in my district are extremely active in visiting and volunteering to help hospitalized veterans being treated in the surrounding medical facilities. I would like to recognize the contributions of our local Veterans of Foreign Wars. American Legion. and Disabled American Veterans posts. as well as the Korean War Veterans. Vietnam War Veterans. the Polish Legion of American Veterans and the Brooksville Elks Lodge. The efforts of these groups pay tribute and express the appreciation of a grateful nation. not only to hospitalized veterans but to every man and woman that has ever worn the uniform. . The contributions of volunteers go a long way. but we in Congress need to reaffirm our commitment to providing veterans with the facilities they need to get the care they deserve. I am pleased to see that in this years budget the President included $120 million for the new VA Medical Facility in Orlando. FL. on the Lake Nona site. This new facility will provide acute care. complex specialty care and advanced diagnostic services through a hospital. an outpatient clinic. a 118bed nursing home. and a 60bed domiciliary. I was also pleased that the Presidents budget included funding for the expansion of the Tampa Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center. This funding will help to improve the facilities and the scope of services available to our severely wounded .veterans at the Tampa Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center. I hope my colleagues will join me in voicing their commitment for the future funding needs of these important projects.
Date: 2008-02-14
Speaker: TIM MURPHY (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Pennsylvania

Mr. Speaker. heres todays grisly toll. 235.626 cases. 11.661 deaths. and a cost of $5.89 billion. What Im talking about here are the number of people who obtain and die and the overall cost of infections in our hospitals every year. from MRSA. from pneumonia and other infections. It is time that Congress got serious about this. In the last 3 years since Ive first introduced this bill. 90.000 people have died each year from infections they pick up at hospitals. It is time we pass the Healthy Hospitals Act. H.R. 1174. and work to make sure our hospitals are safer.
Date: 2008-02-14
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Madam Speaker. I would remind our colleagues that one of the reasons why the minority is outraged with the conduct of the majority today is that we are not even allowed to debate nor vote on the contempt resolutions. but rather on a rule that will selfadopt. automatically adopt even resolutions of this magnitude of importance. totally unprecedented and uncalled for. Madam Speaker. at this time. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. SENSEN-
Date: 2008-02-14
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker. I have prepared a whole series of remarks to respond to the comments made on the floor as to the substance of the concept citation. Unfortunately. because were only able to debate the rule. we dont have time to do that. Let me just try to make a couple of points here very quickly. First of all. the question is. is this the most important thing we should be doing today? Is there a time limit on the action of the House of Representatives that requires us to act on this today? And the answer is no. This doesnt expire today. It doesnt expire tomorrow. It doesnt expire the next day. We are able to do this anytime until the end of this Congress. But what does expire? The Protect America Act. It expires at midnight tomorrow. We should be doing the Nations business with respect to that. rather than this. If. in fact. we are serious about the war on terror. if. in fact. we are serious about gathering that information which is necessary to protect us against those who would harm us and those we represent. we would be acting on the FISA Act reconstitution here today. Wed -be acting on the Senate bill. Thats the time limit. There is no reason for scheduling this today. We have had 8 months to schedule this. But yet we find that this is what were going to be dealing with before we go home. And were going to say it is unimportant as to whether or not we would continue with the Protect America Act. Unimportant except in the opinion of the number one intelligence officer in the United States. Admiral McConnell. who served under Democrat and Republican administrations. who told us if we allow this to go down. that is. the Protect America Act. we will close our eyes for 60 percent of the legitimate terrorist targets around the world prospectively. What are we doing here?
Date: 2008-02-14
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Actually I will yield myself 2 minutes at this time. The actions of the majority today are unprecedented. We have checked with the House Parliamentarian. and they are absolutely and totally unprecedented. that privileged resolutions would be taken to the floor in this fashion. in effect. avoiding even the floor by virtue of the fact that when the rule is passed. the rule that we are debating. automatically the two privileged resolutions of contempt will be considered adopted. That is absolutely unprecedented as well as uncalled for. And the nature of the actions of the majority today are most. most unfortunate. I had the recent opportunity to speak at Florida International Universitys law school. Professor Levitt asked me to speak there about the rule of law. In studying. restudying the issue. the rule of law. I stressed how the independence of the judiciary is perhaps the key. or certainly one of the fundamental keys. to the rule of law. And judicial restraint has permitted the judiciary to remain independent. throughout these twoplus centuries. All of the branches. Madam Speaker. must exercise restraint. And the actions of the majority today manifest the opposite. not only restraint. but I would say unprecedented. uncalled for. an unprecedented and uncalled for manner of dealing with even an issue of this importance. As I stated. the majority is not even allowing debate on the resolutions of contempt. not even permitting votes on the resolutions of contempt. -
Date: 2008-02-14
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Madam Speaker. I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
Date: 2008-02-14
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Thank you. Madam Speaker. I utilized the opportunity of the rules to rise to a question of personal privilege due to the statements attributed in the press that I mentioned before to a spokesperson. which I stated and restated I believe were totally uncalled for and unacceptable. I thank all of you for having listened to me with such courtesy. It is for someone who arrived as a 4yearold tefugee with his family fleeing oppression. an extraordinary moment in the midst of the sadness of the day. and the offense that I felt. it is an extraordinary moment to be able to rise and invoke the rules of the House to seek the attention of the representatives of this extraordinary Nation. So I thank each and every one of you for your patience and your courtesy. At this point. after thanking Mr. DREIER. thanking Mr. BLUNT. and thanking the majority leader for their kind words. I simply end remembering a friend who everyone in this room can agree enriched our lives. My son mentioned the other day this week when we were talking about the sad neWs. he said. Dad. do you remember when I was a little kid and you wanted me to get my posture up. what you would tell me? I will never forget. he told me. Lantos. Your posture. That is one of the first things that impressed me about Tom Lantos. even before I learned about his zealous extraordinary commitment to the oppressed everywhere where people are still longing to be free. So let us all then end this recollection of what I believe was a very unfortunate moment remembering someone who we can all agree was extraordinary. enriched our lives. and was a great Member of Congress and a great American. Thank you all very much.
Date: 2008-02-15
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I would just like to make something very clear for the record. In a statement that is contained in the Washington Post today. written by the DNI. the Director of National Intelligence. he points out that it is not only necessary to extend the Protect America Act but it is absolutely essential. in his opinion and in the opinion of the others in the intelligence community leadership. that we have an immunity for those telecommunications companies that responded affirmatively to the request of our intelligence agency to assist after 9/11. He states unequivocally that its his opinion and the opinion of the others of the leadership of the intelligence community that we put ourselves at risk if we do not do that and that failure to do that has already visited upon us some problems with respect to cooperation around the world. So lets just please let the record be correct that it is not just the extension of the Protect America Act. which was the sole subject of the vote that we had 2 days ago. or 3 days ago. but it is also the question of immunity. or the Good Samaritan law. to apply to those companies who have responded affirmatively to the request to save our Nation. And that needs to be stressed. Thats the crux of the question. as the gentleman from Maryland made very clear on the floor yesterday. or 2 days ago. in the debate. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Date: 2008-02-15
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. The gentleman from Maryland knows that I have great respect for his abilities here on the floor and consider him an expert in parliamentary procedure. However. when the opinion of the DNI. Admiral McConnell. comes to bear. I must respectfully tell the gentleman from Maryland that I believe he has the experience upon which we should rely in this Chamber. He is not a partisan. He has served both Democrat and Republican administrations. He was the head of the NSA during at least 4 if not 6 years of the Clinton administrations. and he is. I believe. a straight shooter. He is the one who came to us and said because of the decision by the FISA Court. reinterpreting in a sense the state of the law. that at least 60 percent of the valuable. legitimate terrorist targets internationally are closed off to us if we do not have the provisions of the Protect America Act and. he said. an immunity given to those companies which have assisted us in the past. Now. the gentleman can smile about it. I understand. but the fact of the matter in he is the top intelligence expert in the United States. He along with the unanimous opinion of the top intelligence officers of the United States have told us that is a fact. Now. the gentleman. as I said. is a wellrespected parliamentarian. a wellrespected leader in this House. and I would certainly respect his opinion on those issues. But what were talking about here is intelligence. And so I think we have laid bare the differences. You on your side believe with your knowledge and experience that the law we had prior to our passage of the Protect America Act is sufficient to protect the Nation. That is directly contradicted by Admiral McConnell. directly contradicted by someone who served both Democrat and Republicans and has had their respect. I do not recall the gentleman from Maryland ever calling into question the opinion or the direction or the leadership of Admiral McConnell when he served in the Clinton administration. and I dont understand that while his judgment was appropriate there. his judgment is to not be respected here. So the fact of the matter in the dispute is whether we believe the top intelligence officers of the United States that we need this law. including the immunity. or I call it the Good Samaritan law. for those telecommunications companies that have responded positively to our request to help find out what the enemy is doing. or as the gentleman from Maryland suggests. superior knowledge and judgment with respect to this. and. therefore. we ought to put aside what Admiral McConnell has told us in the past and continues to tell us even till today.
Date: 2008-02-15
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. To underscore that point. as the gentleman from Maryland knows. a letter was sent by 21 Members on your side of the aisle to the Speaker asking that the Senate bill be presented and stating that they would support it in whole if it were presented on the floor. Now. again. Im not a math major. but 21 on your side and virtually everyone on our side perhaps. with the exception of three. certainly adds up to a majority in this House. So. if the question is would the House be given the time to work its will. the statement of support on your side of the aisle in written form from your membership sufficient to create a majority in this House shows that we had the will if given the opportunity to support a bill coming out of the Senate which responded affirmatively to the presentation made by Admiral McConnell. I again understand the gentleman from Maryland disagrees with the admiral. disagrees with the assessment. but the fact of the matter is a majority in this House disagrees with the gentleman from Maryland. They specifically said in their letter that all of the specific aspects of the bill about which they were concerned were taken care of by the RockefellerBond bill and would support it if it were presented here on the floor and said a key part of that was the inclusion of the immunity for those companies who had assisted this Nation. And. remember. its not a blanket immunity. It is an immunity only if they acted in good faith at the request of the United States Government from 9/11 up until the present time. That is not a blanket immunity. and thats what we are confronted with here. a failure to allow us just to vote it on the floor. We could debate it then and the gentleman from Maryland and his minority of Members. a strong minority but a minority of Members who believe the admiral is wrong would have their opportunity to debate and attempt to persuade the majority of Members who have already indicated that they support the admirals position and believe that we should follow on that support with actual legislation. So thats the point I think that ought not to be lost here. Its not that were not in charge or youre in charge. Its a question of whether the leadership will allow the majority of the House of Representatives to work its will on probably the most important issue facing the American people at the present time. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Date: 2008-02-27
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. picture a cell phone in 1989. Back then. cell phones were huge. the size of a suitcase. and air time cost a fortune. A law was put in place in 1989 to require that detailed log sheets be kept by employees of their cell phone use in order to document their business use. Those rules made sense back then. Fast forward -to today. Clearly. time and technology have marched on and companies give their employees cell phones and BlackBerrys with unlimited minutes. And these communication devices are really just an extension of the business day and place to anywhere at any time. The IRS wants employees to keep detailed call sheets or be forced to include the value of cell phones and BlackBerrys in their pay. The law needs to be brought up to date with the fact that the office cell and BlackBerry is just an extension of the phone on an employees desk. Employees and employers have better things to worry about than keeping detailed logs of calls only for tax purposes. Its time for the Congress to pass the Mobile Cell Phone Act. H.R. 5450. and stop the IRS harassment.
Date: 2008-02-27
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas . the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
Date: 2008-02-27
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. my distinguished friend from New York pointed out earlier that this rule that we are debating is on the energy bill. She pointed that out because we have been stressing the need to debate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And I want to point out. Mr. Speaker. to our colleagues that the rule that we are debating today. this rule lays on the table. it tables H Res. 983. authority to address legislation concerning foreign intelligence surveillance. So its quite germane and relevant in discussing and debating this rule to be insisting upon a debate on FISA. And with that in mind and having said that. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California
Date: 2008-02-27
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself the balance of our time. Mr. Speaker. its disappointing that the majority has decided really to waste the time of this Congress with legislation that three times has failed to make it through the Senate and that observers covering Congress have called a rerun. Instead of wasting time on legislation that will never make it into law. we should be considering bipartisan legislation that will protect Americans from international terrorism. On February 14. the majority decided to leave Washington to take a Presidents Day recess and allow the Protect America Act to expire 2 days later. rendering U.S. intelligence officials unable to begin new terrorist surveillance without cumbersome bureaucratic hurdles. Because of the deliberate inaction of the majority. the United States today is more vulnerable to a terrorist attack. And this did not have to happen. Earlier this month. the Senate passed by a bipartisan vote of 6829 a bill updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. a bill that the chairman of the Intelligence Committee said. " . . . its the right way to go in terms of the security of the Nation." Mr. Speaker. we would have easily considered that legislation. but the majority decided instead to head home. The House should vote on the Senate measure and we should do it now. instead of debating this legislation which will not become law and is really" nothing more than a rerun. We must always stay one step ahead of those who wish harm on Americans. Now is not the time to. in any way. in any way tie the hands of our intelligence community. The modernization of foreign intelligence surveillance into this century is a critical national security priority. Im pleased that several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle also agree. On January 28. 21 members of the Blue Dog Coalition sent a letter to the Speaker in support of the Senate legislation. The letter states. "The RockefellerBond FISA legislation contains satisfactory language addressing all these issues. and we would fully support that measure should it reach the House floor without substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism across the globe and save Americanlives in the United States." Today I will give all Members of this House an opportunity to vote on the bipartisan longterm modernization of FISA. I call on all of my colleagues. including members of the Blue Dog Coalition that signed the letter to. the Speaker. to join with me in defeating the previous question so that we can immediately move to concur in the Senate amendment and send the bill to the President to be signed into law. Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the RECORD prior to the vote on the previous question.
Date: 2008-02-27
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

I urge my colleagues to vote "no" on the previous question and in favor of a bipartisan permanent solution that will help protect American lives from international terrorism. With that. Mr. Speaker. I yield back.