macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker. I rise to join my colleagues today to condemn in the harshest terms possible the vandalism that scarred the Vietnam Veterans Memorial a few weeks ago. My district in Florida is home to the second most veterans of any Member of this body. with more than 105.000 veterans and their dependents residing there. I also serve on the House Veterans Affaits Committee. So many brave soldiers. marines. Navy men. airmen who fought with bravery over in the Southeast -to stop the spread of communism and to protect American interests live in my district. For those brave troops throughout our great Nation who perished in the line of fire. their names are forever marked on the Vietnam Veterans War Memorial here in Washington. DC. That anyone would deface the wall and desecrate the memory of these fine soldiers is beyond anyones comprehension. As someone who grew up in the Vietnam era and someone whose brother and cousin and other family members served honorably and. thankfully. came home safely. I know firsthand the sacrifices these soldiers made. physically and emotionally. during their periods of service. While thousands of our troops perished in the jungles of Vietnam and had their names inscribed on the wall. tens of thousands more came home to their families and loved ones. These are the people who deserve to be the most outraged by the vandalism that took place. the families. -friends and fellow soldiers of the deceased. who make pilgrimages to the wall to pay respects and honor those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our great Nation. I commend Judge CARTER for bringing this resolution to the floor today. And I thank him for doing his part to honor the memory of those who fought and died in Vietnam. We all hope that the individuals who perpetrated this crime will be caught and prosecuted to the full extent of the law and that. clearly. something like this would never happen again.
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in strong support of the resolution offered by Representative BACA of California. I applaud him for bringing this resolution to the floor today and I am very proud to support his efforts. With a district with so many veterans. I can honestly stand here .today and tell you that Veterans Day in my district is on par with the love of God. mom and apple pie. Almost every town and municipality in the eight counties that make up my- congressional district goes out of their way to hold a public event celebrating the accomplishments of our Nations veterans. Traveling around my district. I have met literally thousands of men and some women who recount their stories of military service with pride and with joy. They tell of the bravery of their comrades. of the sacrifices to protect the innocent and the weak and the memories of those killed in action. The resolution before us. House Resolution 237. is a good sense of the House that encourages the celebration of Veterans Day. Veterans Day is not just another day to go to the mall or look for Veterans Day sales but. rather. to honor those who have served our country. These brave soldiers fought for our freedoms and the liberties of our Nation around the world. including France. England. Poland. Vietnam. Korea. Kuwait. Iraq and Afghanistan. The actions of the American military throughout the history of our Nation have helped advance the cause of freedom around the globe and protect citizens from attack from foreign powers. and today from attacks from terrorists. Mr. Speaker. I encourage every American to adopt the spirit of this resolution in celebrating Veterans Day and show our veterans how much we appreciate their sacrifice and the time served. May God bless our soldiers and our veterans.
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I thank the gentlelady for her comments. She mentioned a particular instance in which we brought lawyers into a situation that if you looked at it from the outside doesnt make much sense. you stop battlefield operations in order for lawyers to determine whether or not we can listen in on conversation between nonU.S. persons outside the United States. When you look at the other side of the aisles response to this problem. you see what they have done is they have elevated the judiciary to the primary role in these decisions. That is. in my judgment. a complete misunderstanding of the proper role of the courts. Look. since Marbury v. Madison. the eminent case basically saying that the Supreme Court gets the last say on constitutional issues. there has been a misunderstanding by some that that means that the Supreme Court. the judicial branch. is somehow superior to the other two branches of government. That is not the case in the area of warmaking capacity or carrying out a war. If you look at the Constitution. you will see very. very clearly that the Constitution specifies specific powers in article I to Congress and in the executive branch in article II. and the United States Supreme Court has already told us that there are some matters. believe it or not they have said. better suited for disposition by the elected branches of government. The War Powers Act. or. excuse me. the war power. the right to declare war. given to the Congress. powers of the purse. given to the Congress. The President possesses authority relating to his constitutional status as CommanderinChief as well as all executive authority. So these are very. very distinct. What we have seen on the other side of the aisle is an elevation to the altar of judi6ial determination in these cases. This is not just the only thing. The leaders on the other side want to take now and give habeas corpus rights to those people we have at Guantanamo. those people we have taken off the battlefield.
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. If I could just respond to that. lets remember. we are not talking about domestic terrorists. We are not talking about domestic criminals. We are not talking about American citizens. We are talking about nonAmericans not in the United States. Thats what we are talking about. and the American people need to understand that.
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Let me also explain one bill. If you look at the bill that the Democratic majority brought to the floor. -they say. we take care of this problem. They say. if its foreign to foreign. you dont need a warrant. Here is the problem that Admiral McConnell explained to us. When you put a tap. or you somehow capture the communications. you only know the front end of the communications. that is. Osama bin Laden is calling somewhere and communicating in some way. You dont know where in the world he is going to end up on the other side of the communication. If. in fact. you have to say ahead of time. we can guarantee that none of those conversations will ever reach into the United States or to an American anywhere. you couldnt get a prior warrant. because you cant guarantee that. What you need to do is to do it the way Admiral McConnell suggested and the way we put it in the law before. If its a target that is a foreigner in a foreign country. for foreign intelligence purposes. as defined under the law. if thats the case. you dont need a warrant. If. as you collect the communications in some way. you find that inadvertently a communication went into the United States or is with an American citizen. you do what we call. under the law. minimization. which means. if it has nothing to do with that individual on the other end that implicates that individual in any way. you dont use it. But you do use it against Osama bin Laden. What they put in the bill was. very specifically. if we inadvertently capt ture a communication that involves an American on the other side. guess what we have to do? We cannot use it. We cannot disclose it. We cannot use it for any purpose. and we cannot keep it for more than 7 hours unless we go to a court and get another court order for a warrant.
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Lets understand what we are talking about. I presume Osama bin Laden is sharp enough to realize that maybe he ought to have more than one phone line. You know what we have with bad guys in the United. States. they use cell phone after cell phone after cell phone. They use it for maybe a day. They throw it away. They use another one. Dont you think the bad guys trying to kill us are as smart as that? We have to be able to be sharp enough to find this stuff and turn on this information in a timely fashion to save us. We have to have the agility to do that. What has happened with the law we passed in August. according to the NSA. and I was out there yesterday. and according to Admiral McConnell. we are now able to do those things. We now have the agility to do those things. If we were to adopt the bill that was on the floor last week. we couldnt do it. The American people have to understand. no matter what they say about it. the expert on it tells it. we would not be able to do it.
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Against terrorist targets internationally. absolutely. In the process. we will grant more protection under the law to Osama bin Laden than we do to an American citizen accused of a crime in the United States. That is the utter insult in the whole process.
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I dont think anybody could call that common sense. Only on the floor of the House of Representatives would one dare to call that common sense. I am not one person who dares. nor are my two colleagues here.
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Unless that cell had already been identified by us. we knew who they were. we had already gotten legal permission to do that. we wouldnt be able to do that.
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Absolutely.. Let me tell you what happens in a criminal case. Lets say we have a legitimate wiretap on a member of the Mafia. and that person makes calls. We dont know who he is going to call. He calls his mother. He calls his barber. He calls the guy who delivers pizza. Because he talks to that other person who was not the target. the legal target. doesnt mean that we cannot use that information against the legal target. We cant use it against that person if that person is someone we then find is a person of interest. and we would become a target. Then we have to go get a warrant against that person. Thats all that we are saying we ought to do with the law and. in fact. that is what you would do with the law that you passed. As a result. we have really put handcuffs in our ability to deal with terrorism far much more than people would argue that we would do in terms of law enforcement.
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Let me just reclaim my time for a moment. And remembering last week when we had this bill on the floor and we went before the Rules Committee to ask for an opportunity for amendment and debate on our important issues and we were denied that by a gag rule. I would like to yield to the gentleman for purposes of a short debate. because I think this is what we should engage in and why I was so disappointed last week on the rule.
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Well. if I could take back my time. if the gentleman would specifically say where we misstated. I would love to respond to that. But the gentleman can get his own time to talk about other things.
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I will reclaim my time. The fact of the matter is that is true. I hope to get the language here in a moment. In the managers amendment. in the second major paragraph of the amendment. it specifically refers to inadvertent capture of a conversation involving an American on one end. And in those cases it specifically said. if that is the case. you may not use it for any purpose. you may not disclose it. and you may not keep it for more than 7 days. unless you get a specific warrant with respect to that. or the Attorney General makes a specific finding that the information itself relates to the death of an American. Now. the fact of the matter is that was picked up from language thats currently in FISA that has nothing to do with this. that has to do with inadvertent communications gained in another context. So I dont know whether it was inadvertent. it was bad draftsmanship. or it was intentional. But the fact of the matter is. on its face. that is exactly what it does. and thats why I can stand here and say. without fear of contradiction. that it gives greater protection to Osama bin .Laden in that instance than we give to an American charged with a crime in the United States. Again. I dont know what the purpose was in drafting it that way. Thats one of the problems when you bring a bill to the floor and you have a closed rule that doesnt even allow us to question the language. to attempt to deal with it. And the gentleman can say it doesnt say that. I would suggest the gentleman go back and look at the specific language. -because I was astounded when I first read it. I first looked at it and said. this cant possibly be the way. I presented it to the Rules Committee. Not a single person on the Rules Committee or a member of your side of the aisle on the Judiciary Committee or the Intelligence Committee contradicted what I had to say. No one pointed to where that was wrong. That happens to be in the bill. Now. if you want to change it. we ought to change it. But the fact of the matter is thats where it is.
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Let me just reclaim my time to specifically quote Admiral McConnell on this point. He said in testimony before the Judiciary Committee: "When you are conducting surveillance in the context of electronic surveillance. you can only target one end of the conversation. So you have no control over who that number might call or who they might receive a call from." He then said specifically: "Im talking about foreigntoforeign and whether that takes care of the problem." These are his words. If you have to predetermine that its foreigntoforeign before you do it. it is impossible. Thats the point. You can only target one. If youre going to target. you have to program some equipment to say. Im going to look at number 1. 2. 3. so targeting. in this sense. if you are targeting a phone number that is foreign. So thats the target. The point is that you have no control over who that target might call or who might call that target.
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Ill be happy to yield in one second. I found that I did have the specific language to which I referred a moment ago. This is the proposed language in the bill: "If electronic surveillance concerning foreigntoforeign communications inadvertently collects a communication in which at least one. party to the communication is located inside the United States or is a United States person. the contents of such communication shall be handled in accordance with minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney General." If thats all it said. that would be fine. But then it says: "That require that no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed. disseminated- or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 7 days. unless a court order is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily injury." Reading that. as it is written. if Osama bin Laden. in a conversation. communication or whatever to someone who happens to be a U.S. person or is in the United States that is not then a target. under the regime that we have. doesnt implicate that individual whatsoever. but in the course of the conversation. reveals where he is. where hes going to be. we cannot act on that information under this specific language unless the Attorney General determines the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily injury. Telling where he is doesnt indicate a threat of death to anybody or serious bodily injury to anybody. Thats the language that your side has presented on the floor as a fait accompli. We could not amend it. We couldnt even discuss amending it on the floor because we had a gag rule. And the gentleman is a distinguished attorney. He knows how to use words very. very well. You cant change the words that are on the printed page. Let me yield to my friend from Missouri before I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden or other terrorist groups and prevent attacks on the United States or Americans. That was the language. And I might say to the gentleman. it was never offered. we never got to that point. But rather than have a gag rule or follow the leadership we got from the Democratic side. of a gag rule. we also showed it to the other side way ahead of time. And the reaction was what? To pull the bill. or at least to stop in middebate on the bill. and we will bring it back.
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Well. let me yield to the gentleman from New York. Perhaps the gentleman from New York can tell us when the bill is coming back to the floor.
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. If I might take my time on that point. Promptly means it goes back to committee. It doesnt say it cant come back for 2 weeks. It goes back to committee. Now. we have some rules here that require a few days. We also have something called waiver of rules that has happened virtually on every rule that weve had here. presenting a bill to the floor. And let me ask the gentleman. if. in fact. your concern was it would be a delay of a week or two. what are we doing now? I would yield to the gentleman.
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. So its the gentlemans statement that youre willing to accept the motion to recommit. and your side. is the leadership.
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Well. thats good to hear. Then we will expect to see that language in the bill when it returns.
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Ill take back my time. Thats precisely the problem. You have to get a warrant before youcan take action. And if. in that conversation. something that Osama bin Laden said does not implicate the American whatsoever. does not indicate a threat of death or serious bodily injury to anybody else. but reveals where he is. you are prohibited from dealing with that. The gentleman from New York. I appreciate it. But you know. the great political philosopher. Don Meredith. once said: "If if and buts were candy and nuts. everyday would be Christmas." Now you may wish it. You may hope it. You may think it. These are the words that your side presented to us as a fait accompli. Thats what it says. You cant get around it. And the gentleman. as a distinguished attorney. knows that when you go into court youve got to look at the words. Were not going to put people at risk in the CIA. in the FBI and the NSA. in all of those other agencies in the Department of Justice based on the fact that we ought to read these. as I think the gentleman said once before in debate. in a commonsense way. There is no commonsense exception to this provision in the law. I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Reclaiming my time. not only could we not disseminate. but this is the language: "or used for any purpose." Thats pretty broad. I would say.
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H

I would be happy to yield after I make this one statement in reference to what the gentlewoman just said. Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals put it this way: "The aim of national security intelligence is to thwart attacks by enemy nations or terrorist groups rather than to punish the perpetrators after an attack has occurred. The threat of punishment is not a reliable deterrent to such attacks. especially when the attackers are fanatics who place a low value on their own lives and when the potential destructiveness of attacks is so great that even a single failure of deterrence can have catastrophic consequences. That is why." the judge says. "when the government is fighting terrorism rather than ordinary crime. the emphasis shifts from punishment to prevention." The judge has put it fairly well in almost understandable terms. as the gentleman from Missouri would say. And I yield to the gentleman from Missouri. who would not like to be described as an attorney.
Date: 2007-10-23
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. That is true. And I would say it is similar to going to the doctor and the doctors telling you that you need an operation to repair a faulty valve in your heart. and before you make the decision. you have to go to a judge to get permission to follow the doctors order. I dont think thats what I would want to do.