macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2005-07-18
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Committea on Government Reform. The National Drug Control Strategy for 2005 and the National Drug Control Budget for Fiscal Year 2006 (Rept. 109172). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Date: 2005-07-19
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Speaker. I rise this morning to honor the 157th anniversary of the womens suffragette movement here in the United States. On this date in 1848. a historic meeting of women leaders took place in Seneca Falls. New York. Their initial gathering was the first step in the long and challenging road that led women to where I stand today. Like Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton in their time. Republican women are leading the fight to highlight the equal and full rights that American women enjoy. and to expand those rights to women around the globe. Many do not know that the Republican Party first introduced the 19th amendment in 1878. Four times in a row the amendment was actually defeated by the Democratcontrolled Senate. It was not until the Republican Party regained control of Congress in 1919 that the equal rights suffragette amendment finally passed both the House and the Senate. Republicans deserve credit for promoting the first woman to the highest court in the land and for advancing the rights of women around the world. Mr. Speaker. the Republican Party has a long and distinguished track record of championing womens issues.
Date: 2005-07-19
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of the provisions in this bill that address the unwillingness of Mexico to extradite violent criminals back to the United States for prosecution. I want to be sure all of my colleagues are aware that we share our southern border with a country that willingly harbors criminals: rapists. robbers. and murderers. Since 2001. Mexico has become a fugitive paradise where people accused of heinous crimes in the United States can escape from American justice. I would like to share one of these stories with Members today. In 2002. Deputy David March. a 7year veteran of the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department. was brutally shot while performing a routine traffic stop at 10:30 in the morning. The suspect. Armando Garcia. fled to Mexico to avoid prosecution. Garcia was an illegal alien who disregarded our Nations immigration laws when -coming to California from Mexico. Once in the United States. he continued his life as a criminal plaguing our streets with drugs and engaging in other criminal activities. including two attempted murders. While he had already been deported three times. Garcia again ignored our Nations laws and illegally entered the United States a fourth time. This time. he brutally murdered a police officer who was merely stopping him for a routine traffic violation. Garcia killed Deputy March by shooting him execution style in the side of his chest where the bulletproof vest did not cover. and in the head. Now this monster. who has demonstrated a total disregard for the laws of our country over and over again. walks free in Mexico. Even worse. his blatant contempt for our laws is being implicitly sanctioned by the Mexican Government which is protecting him from prosecution for his heinous crimes. Mexican officials have refused to extradite Garcia because he could face the death penalty or life in prison for murdering Deputy David March. Let us be clear. the Mexican Government is harboring a cop killer. Every day law enforcement officers nobly protect our friends. neighbors. and families from crime. They work to improve the quality of life for all of us. Sometimes they pay the ultimate sacrifice. For that. they and their families deserve our sincere appreciation and utmost respect. For 7 years. Deputy March dedicated -his life to the pursuit of justice and to the protection of our communities. We must honor the sacrifice that he and his family paid for our safety by pursuing justice for his senseless murder. I have met Deputy Marchs family. To see the pain and anger in their faces. knowing their sons killer is roaming free across our southern border. is heartbreaking. We cannot sit silently while Mexico becomes a criminal black hole for murderers seeking to escape from justice. We must learn from Deputy Marchs murderer. If another country is unwilling to respect Americas laws. its citizens will also disregard our rule of law when they cross over our borders. I commend the gentleman from Illinois
Date: 2005-07-21
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker. if this rule is adopted. the House of Representatives will consider the extension of the USA PATRIOT Act. The ultimate fate of this legislation will determine- how effective we will be in investigating the clandestine activities of terrorist organizations aAd in preventing catastrophic events in the future. There is. Mr. Speaker. no greater or more solemn responsibility that we have as representatives of the American people. And. frankly. I have been astonished at the characterization of the bill and the record of the Justice Department. As a member of the committee and the subcommittee of jurisdiction. the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary. I have spent countless hours going over the records. including looking at top secret reports that are lodged with this Congress. and I will state for the record I can find no evidence of a violation of civil liberties. And I would suggest any Member who comes to the floor be very careful about suggesting that there are. without evidence. That is a criticism of our Department of Justice. that is a criticism of our investigative agencies and our intelligence agencies that is not borne out by the record. I think we should make that very clear. particularly today when we have another instance. presumably. in London. of what we are facing. This is serious business. and allegations that are easily thrust in this body. in my judgment. are irresponsible. I authored the amendment in the Committee on the Judiciary to require two sunsets of the two most controversial provisions in this bill. but I did not do that based on any suggestion there is any record of a violation of civil liberties. I did that because. it seems to me. it was an indication to the public from us that we would consider doing effective oversight. which we have done. Some have suggested in 1minutes this morning that there is something wrong with the process here. I do not understand that. Now. I have been absent for 16 years. but I can recall how things were done 20 years ago. In the Committee on the Judiciary. with respect to this bill. the bill was available on a Friday. We marked it up on a Wednesday. I can recall being a member of that committee when I was in the minority when we received the bill on the midnight before we were supposed to consider things. This is hardly a wrong or improper process. Mr. Speaker. we considered over 50 amendments in the Committee on the Judiciary. We on the majority side were willing to stay there for several more days. It was the minority who made the motion to call the previous question and withdrew consideration of more amendments on their side. This is a structured bill that has something on the order of 20 amendments available. covering many of the issues that people are concerned about. I would hardly suggest that we are moving with undue dispatch here or that somehow we are not considering this in proper order.
Date: 2005-07-21
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Chairman. I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman SENSENBRENNER) for putting together this excellent extension and reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act. Mr. Chairman. America faced a new kind of enemy on September 11. one that mercilessly attacked civilians on our own shores. In response. the Congress. I was not here at the time. passed the PATRIOT Act to give law enforcement agents appropriate tools to fight the new war on terror. Today. we have a great opportunity to send a strong message of support for several provisions of this bill which would have expired on December 1. I specifically want to mention the library section. For some reason. section 215 has come to be known as that. 0l 1330 Actually. it is one that allows law enforcement officers to gain access to business records. Why would we not want to have library records and bookstore records be available if there is a suspected terrorist? By doing so. we would only be making bookstores and libraries sanctuaries for these terrorists. The purpose of this legislation was when it was originally created and now as we extend it to protect Americans. We cannot afford to make libraries and bookstores havens for those bent on harming U.S. citizens. Opponents have waged a campaign of misinformation. Recently. some Members on the other side have actually admitted that it has not been abused. We want to make sure that Americans are protected. For that reason. I fully supportthe reauthorization of the expiring PATRIOT Act. and I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman SENSENBRENNER) for his work on this issue.
Date: 2005-07-21
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. and I rise in support of the FlakeSchiff amendment. This is another effort in our continuation to support section 215 in all of its aspects. with the protections that I think are reasonable that allow us to take into consideration some of the concerns that people have expressed. even though there have been no examples. I repeat. no examples of abuses under this act. The Justice Department has told us they have not used this section in the area of libraries. Therefore. I hope they would not object to the gentlemans amendment. because this is going to be used very. very seldom. based on past history. Yet. it is relevant. and we already discussed the ways in which it may be relevant to terrorism cases. So I would hope that we would have strong support for this amendment. recognizing that this. along with the other changes that we have added to section 215. will allow us to have this still be utilized and utilized in a way that is not undone. as I thought the amendment that we had on the floor just a few weeks ago would have done so. This is a commonsense amendment. I hope we will get unanimous support for it.
Date: 2005-07-21
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. and I rise in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman. national security letters are sort of a strange beast. It is kind of difficult to figure out what they are. They are sort of like administrative subpoenas. but they are not actually administrative subpoenas. They are limited in their scope. NSLs do not allow the FBI to read the contents of communications but rather the records of communication. That may seem like a legal nicety. but it is a major difference. The Supreme Court has recognized those kinds of differences. Nonetheless. the recipients of these. while the Justice Department has told us that they allow them to talk to their lawyers. if you look at the statute as it exists now there seems to be a question about that. This amendments makes its explicit. Also. durrently under the law. there is no enforcement mechanism when they do issue a national security letter. This amendment allows such an enforcement mechanism by going to a court.
Date: 2005-07-21
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Speaker. I would like the Members of Congress to recognize the fact we have some visitors from Iraq. some Iraqi women who are here to learn how to put together a Constitution for Iraq. These are women who have been involved in the government. very. very brave women. The Womens Caucus met with them today and pledged our full support to a free and democratic Iraq. and one that we can all be proud of in the future and that certainly will reflect the great work that our military has done to help create a democracy in Iraq. We ended our meeting with lifting glasses of water and toasting to democracy.
Date: 2005-07-21
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. this is a fairly straightforward amendment. This amendment deals with the predicate for the use of wiretaps under the Federal Code. Current law may not authorize the use of electronic surveillance in criminal investigations of certain other crimes that terrorists are likely to commit. This amendment would fill in a gap in the law by adding six other predicates for the electronic surveillance and monitoring under 18 U.S.C. 2516(1). While we were considering this bill in committee. the gentleman from California had an amendment which added a number of offenses to the wiretap statute. They went all the way from fraud and misuse of visas and violence at international airports. to offenses relating to torture. offenses relating to terrorist attacks against mass transportation. offenses of militarytype training from foreign terrorists. offenses related to explosive materials. There are a number of others that I believe should be in that same category that. unfortunately. we did not include when we considered his amendment. This proposed language would permit the interception by wire or by oral surveillance if the interception would provide evidence of six different types of crimes: One. arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction. Two. offenses relating to plastic explosives. Three. offenses related to attack on Federal facility with firearm. Four. conspiracy to harm persons or property overseas. Five. offenses relating to assault on a flight crew with dangerous weapon. Six. offenses related to explosive or incendiary devices. or endangerment of human life. by means of weapons on an aircraft. This amendment does nothing. nothing whatsoever. to affect the standard of obtaining a wiretap. That remains the same. Rather. it merely takes offenses which have a nexus with terrorism and gives law enforcement the additional investigative tool to undercover evidence of their commissions through a wire or oral surveillance. The ability of law enforcement to intercept communications related to these terrorismrelated offenses is a critical aspect of the effort. not only of uncovering evidence of the most dangerous lifethreatening activity. but also in strengthening our ability to apprehend these perpetrators before they inevitably strike again. That is probably the major focus of our efforts with this bill. that is. how do we apprehend these perpetrators before they strike? Such surveillance will better enable law enforcement to be proactive in preventing future terrorist attacks.
Date: 2005-07-21
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. the Hyde amendment recognizes a new reality in a very real danger that is growing: the deadly mix of drug trafficking and terrorism. It has now been estimated that nearly half of the designated foreign terrorist organizations are involved in the trafficking of illegal drugs. That is illegal drugs that end up on the streets of our cities. the cities of our allies. poisoning the fabric of their society and our society. Terrorists. like old organized crime syndicates from the past. have recognized that illegally drug trafficking is a valuable source of financing and just another way to threaten our country. The evidence linking these two criminal activities is overwhelming. Terrorists in Afghanistan are now infiltrating and controlling the cultivation of poppy and ultimately heroin. The deadly bombings in Spain were financed through drug money. Hezbollah has been linked to drug trafficking from South America to the Middle East. and of course the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia has longstanding drug trafficking operations which fund their deadly activities. The Hyde amendment simply creates a new Federal crime for the trafficking of controlled substances which are intended to benefit a foreign terrorist organization or any other terrorist organization and imposes a stiff mandatory minimum penalty of 20 years. It is a serious crime and one that needs to be stopped. and this amendment would do the job. I would say that those who have some question abot mandatory minimum penalties. -this is hardly the place to object to them. This is really seriously two crimes: the one of drug trafficking connected with terrorism. It seems to me this would be precisely the place we would support mandatory minimum penalties. I think we should be thanking the gentleman from Illinois for bringing this to our attention. Let us remember that since most of the Afghan heroin goes to Europe and not here to the United States. our Justice Department and hardpressed DEA are very limited in going after the drug dealers and drug lords who facilitate terrorism directed at our troops. They need some nexus to the drugs coming to the USA. Please join me in supporting the Hyde amendment. It makes sense. Yes. it is tough. but we need to be tough in this circumstance.
Date: 2005-07-22
Speaker: JO ANN DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. . am deeply concerned that NASAs diminishing iivestment in aeronautics research and development will. in time. jeopardize the health of our aerospace industry as well as jeopardize the ability of the Pentagon to develop and field aircraft to defend our homeland and to carry troops and materiel to distant battles. NASAs investment in aeronautics research and development has shrunk by half since 1998 and the agencys proposed 5:year budget continues this downward trend. This has got to stop. Over the decades. NASA researchers and engineers have made incalculable contributions to aviation safety. efficiency. and noise and emission reductions. The current challenges facing the aerospace industry are no less daunting as we seek to transform the Nations commercial aviation system. avoid aviation gridlock. and to continue to sustain Americas preeminence in the worlds aerospace marketplace. Is it the gentleman from New Yorks intention to work for a stronger aeronautics research and development program?
Date: 2005-07-25
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. it has been said that a quitter never wins and a winner never quits. Seventime winner of the Tour De France. Lance Armstrong. embodies these words. Raised in Plano. Texas. Lance Armstrong has become a household name synonymous with sacrifice. victory. and courage. Most agree Lances biggest victory was defeating cancer. Lance has spread his message that "you too can help fight the disease and beat it." Many now where his yellow Livestrong bracelets. with countless dollars pouring into cancer research to help find a cure. He truly is a hero of hope. I thank Lance Armstrong for all he has. done for the American spirit and the cancer community. His tenacity. courage. and strength are an inspiration. I congratulate him on his seventh Tour De France victory. God bless him. I salute him.
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: BILL FRIST (republican)
Chamber: S
State: fered

legislation to make crystal clear that Scouts will be able to participate actively on our military facilities as they have for so many years. Along with Senator REEDa graduate of West Point he isI serve on the board of West Point with him. Senator REED chairs that board. I remember one of the briefings we had about the young people who graduate from West Point and go on to a military career. They said the two groups of graduates that had the highest reenlistment rate. the two groups that made the Army a career in the highest percentage. were children of former military parents and Eagle Scouts. There is some connection there. a connection in terms of duty and honor and commitment to country and to our creator in a way that is special. The Scouts and our military do share some ideals. I thank the Chair for allowing me to share these remarks. I appreciate the Senator from Alaska so much for her tribute to these fine leaders who gave their lives in service to the young men under their supervision. I yield the floor.
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to be here today to support the rule to govern H.R. 525. the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005. As costs continue to escalate annually at unprecedented rates. our employers are being forced to drop health care coverage. or not be able to afford it at all. Our small businesses share a large part of that burden because they are forced to shop for health insurance in the costly small group market. Large employers bring bargaining clout to the table when they work with insurance companies. Small businesses have fewer employees and thus have little or no bargaining power. Not only that. but large employers and unions are exempt from burdensome State mandates. These mandates dictate what health plans must cover and which vary from State to State. Small employers do not have that luxury We know that more than 60 percent of the over40 million uninsured Americans either work for a small business or are dependent upon someone who does. The clear course of action here is to help our small businesses afford health coverage by giving them the same opportunity. Association health plans. or AHPs. do just that. Small businesses would be able to group together in bona fide trade associations. AHPs would then be able to use economies of scale to their advantage and provide more affordable health care for working families while avoiding the administrative cost of State mandates. AHPs are expected to save small business owners and their employees as much as 30 percent on their health insurance. This bipartisan bill makes sense. The time to act is now. I urge a "yes" vote on this rule.
Date: 2005-07-26
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. we have heard it over and over again today on the floor. Too many working Americans have a job. but are uninsured because their employers cannot afford to purchase quality health insurance benefits for their workers. This bill addresses the two most important issues in the health care reform debate: cost and access. H.R. 525 would. one. increase small businesses bargaining power with health care providers. two. give them muchneeded freedom from costly Statemandated benefit packages. and. three. lower their overhead costs by as much as30 percent. Our small businesses are denied the ability to purchase health coverage with the benefits large multistate companies and unions have enjoyed for decades. This bill fixes that problem. By pooling their resources. increasing their bargaining power. AHPs will help small businesses reduce their health insurance costs. As the Members have heard me say before. if it is good enough for Wall Street. it is good enough for Main Street. Small businesses in most States are stuck with disproportionately higher costs because they have to choose from fewer than five providers. So AHPs offer them a new option to choose from. Most importantly. AHPs will expand access to quality health care for the people for whom it is currently out of reach: uninsured working families. This bill has had unwavering support in the House for nearly a decade now. The other body is taking a serious look at the legislation this year. and it is a priority in the Presidents health care agenda. I look forward to working with our colleagues from the other body to make this bill law this year. The problem is getting worse every day. Small businesses need our help now. Let us vote "yes" on H.R. 525.