macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2010-02-25
Speaker: TIM MURPHY (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Pennsylvania

Mr. Speaker. in todays news. the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Ben Bernanke. warned that huge deficits and borrowing place us at risk for high inflation and high interest rates. Add this to the high unemployment. borrowing from China and buying huge amounts of oil from OPEC. and we have to recognize weve got a mess on our hands. But there is a solution. We can create jobs and grow our economy without raising taxes. It is the bipartisan American Conservation and Clean Energy Independence Act. H.R. 2227. This bill uses the trillions of dollars from oil and gas exploration off our coast to drive conservation and new technologies to improve energy efficiency. develop cleanenergy generation and infrastructure. rebuild Americas inefficient transportation system. and clean our air and water. Not only will we be creating a clean energy future. but creating millions of goodpaying jobs for years to come. The news tells us of how things are. but thats not how it has to be. Join me in supporting the American Conservation and Clean Energy Independence Act.
Date: 2010-02-25
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. the gentleman asked: Why? Well. you know. its not just in my backyard. I dont want them in any Americans backyard. Guess what? The American people agree with me. Thats why Mr. KING and I went before your committee. to ask permission if we could possibly debate this issue on the floor. Everything you just said is part of a debate that could take place. and we could resolve it. but the Rules Committee decided. in their infinite wisdom. not to allow us to debate that on the floor.
Date: 2010-02-25
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. So we have right now. taking place across the street from the White House. a summit on health care. We should be having a summit today on the intelligence community. in our effort against those who would wish to destroy us by terrorism. The way we act suggests to the American people this is not on the top of our priority list but on the bottom. Later. we are going to have the rule on the PATRIOT Act. Why? Because. within a couple of days. three provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire. Monday. we rushed in here. We had an extra day of voting. What did we do? We worked to rid the country of the scourge of unnamed post offices. We were here to make sure thatman. weve got to find some more post offices to name. Why couldnt we give additional time to allow amendments that are serious in nature and that the American people want us to deal with on this floor? But no. Once again. the Rules Committee has said we are not going to allow it. but we are going to incorporate in the managers amendment an amendment which actually provides greater rights to those who are being held and put at jeopardy our intelligence community.
Date: 2010-02-25
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I thank the gentleman for the additional time. So these are individual parts of a law that has served us well. Ironic it is that on the very day that our committee considered the lone wolf provision and decided because it had not been used before we should withdraw it. we had the terrible I wont call it a tragedy. I will call it a terrible terrorist attack at Fort Hood. Within hours of us rejecting the notion that we needed a lone wolf provision. we had a domestic lone wolf. Now. of course the PATRIOT Act does not apply to someone who is an American citizen. But my point is had we had such an attack before that attack took place. doesnt it seem a little nonsensical to say because it hadnt happened before we ought not to have some tools at our disposal which would help us fight it? Let me just underscore again. these provisions in the law allow our intelligence community to collect the dots. The 9/11 Commission criticized our government for a failure to connect the dots. You need to first have the dots. You need to first have the information. And that is what these tools allow us to provide to our intelligence community so that they can analyze those things. So Mr. Speaker. I reluctantly support this legislation because it is a mere 1year extension. It deprives us of the debate that should be front and center of this representative body. If we truly believe our first obligation is to protect the people we represent. we must provide for the common defense. The PATRIOT Act does this. These provisions do this. We should act on this with full knowledge. full debate. and full confidence in our intelligence communities that we can move forward and protect the American people.
Date: 2010-02-26
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I am sorry. I had to come over here and just respond to what was said by the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. You said. in the previous administration. anything goes. Read the memo that just came out of the Justice Department. Look at the actions of the Justice Department. They suggest that anything did not go. To say that now is to besmirch the reputations of good men and women who have worked both career and political to save us from the threat of terrorists since 9/11. To come here and to say "anything goes" is a continuation of besmirching the reputations of good men and women. Frankly. it ought not to stand. Look at the facts. Look at the recent memo that reviewed those analyses. You will see that is not the case.
Date: 2010-02-26
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. If the gentleman would look at the memo that just came out which reviews the legal analysis provided by the Justice Department in terms of waterboarding. you would see that there is not only a historic but a legal and substantial difference between the waterboarding referenced in the complaints versus that which we did.
Date: 2010-02-26
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. There is no difference in the applicationthe numbers. yes. The fact of the matter is. after that individual was waterboarded multiple times. we received actionable information from the intelligence community. which allowed us to stop plots that were aimed at killing Americans. That has been said under oath by the highest levels of the intelligence community in the United States.
Date: 2010-02-26
Speaker: MARIO DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Madam Speaker. I rise today to honor one of our communitys most humble and steadfast leaders. the mayor of Florida City. Mr. Otis T. Wallace. For nearly three decades. the people of Florida City have put their trust in him as mayor. leader and friend. A graduate of Michigan State University and the University of Miami Law School. he is the director of TIB Bank. Mayor Wallace is completely dedicated to the residents of Florida City and ensuring that the needs and priorities of his community are met. Despite the pressures that elected office can bring. Mayor Wallace keeps his cool. always smiling and acting humbly. with the best interest of others in mind. He has proven to be a dependable. hard working and selfless leader. always willing to work with others to find commonsense solutions. Mayor Wallace is no stranger to civic engagements. He is the chairman of the Florida City Community Redevelopment Agency and a member of the HomesteadFlorida City Chamber of Commerce. He also serves as the chairman of the Florida City Foundation and on the board of directors of the Florida National Parks and Monuments Association. Inc.. the MiamiDade Criminal Justice Council and the Homestead Area Indigent Care Foundation. Inc. He is also a member of the NAACP. E266 As we celebrate Black History Month. please join me in recognizing and thanking Mayor Otis Wallace for his dedication to the residents of Florida City and his commitment to ensuring that his community continues to thrive.
Date: 2010-03-04
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

You know. I think after yet another health care speech by the President. the American people are sick and tired of the Democrats "I know whats best for you" attitude. Congress needs to wake up and realize that Americans know more about their health care needs than the government bureaucrats. They know exactly what a Washington takeover of health care means. and theyre shouting from the rooftops: No. no. no. Its time for the President and Speaker PELOSI to realize that this policy debate isnt between Democrats and Republicans. its between the Democrats and the American people. And the American people are saying. Enough is enough. They dont want a health care bill that raise taxes. stifles small business. increases insurance premiums. and cuts Medicare. If the Democrats insist on ramming this bill through against the will of the American people. then theyd better be prepared to suffer the consequences in November.
Date: 2010-03-04
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the ranking member for allowing me to speak. On behalf of the American taxpayer. I am deeply disappointed that the Democrat majority is not allowing me to offer a commonsense amendment to protect the American taxpayer. The amendment was simple: It would require businesses seeking to use a hiring tax incentive in the bill before us to check the legal status of potential new hires through the EVerify programyou have seen that in the papers lately. it hasnt been used properlya voluntary employment verification system. While not perfect by any means. EVerify is certainly far better than the current paperbased verification method. If the majority insists on moving forward with this flawed bill that in the end I believe will do little to create new jobs. we must ensure that this hiring tax break isnt used to hire those here illegally. The American taxpayer and the unemployed American worker deserve nothing less. This is the right thing to do. Now more than ever in these tough economic times we need to ensure that the American worker. and not illegals. is our first priority.
Date: 2010-03-04
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Madam Speaker. I want to make it clear from the start that there are some items in this bill. some provisions. that everyone in this Chamber could probably support. Providing tax relief to small businesses is really a good idea. but this very fact raises an important question: If the majority recognizes that lowering taxes for businesses is good for employment and is certainly good for the economy. then why do they insist on dramatically raising taxes everywhere else every single chance the Democrats get? I also think that it is worth discussing the nefarious accounting gimmicks in this bill. I voted for the principle of PAYGO because I believed in it. but no sooner did the Democrats finish patting themselves on the backs for passing PAYGO than they turned around and came up with waiving it and. in this instance. kind of Bernie Madoffing it. if there is such a word. I think I just created a new word. Madam Speaker. I dont want to get too far into the technical weeds here. but this bill is PAYGOcompliant only because of some accounting gimmicks. In the fourth quarter. move a little first quarter money into future years. and prestochangeo. the bill becomes PAYGOcompliant. The American people know we cant spend the same money twice. so lets take a closer look. The official cost estimate of the bill does not include a $20 billion transfer from the general fund to the highway fund. meaning we will have to find that money someplace else. We will have to find that general revenue money someplace else. probably from China. The cost estimate doesnt reflect $142 billion in a new spending authorization for transportation projects that we dont have a source of revenue to pay for. Maybe thats why we were only given a few hours to read the bill before the vote is to take place on it. While were on the subject of transportation funding. I did hear Mr. OBERSTAR say that the Senate was going to fix this. but the bill before us is not one that is good for transportation for the various States.
Date: 2010-03-04
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. I thank the gentleman. Certainly. California and Illinois get half of the funding. That leaves the rest of America to ask. Whats in it for us? Well. the answer is zero. Florida is a donor State and already pays far more in transportation taxes than what it gets back. Quite frankly. I cannot support the bill that is before us today for that reason and for several other reasons.
Date: 2010-03-10
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

I thank my dear friend Mr. ROSKAM for the time. and I simply rise to join my voice in praise and commendation for all those who have made possible that this resolution come to the floor. I think it speaks very highly of this Congress. Mr. Speaker. there is no more generous nation in the world than the American Nation. the American people. One sees that generosity time and time again. As Mr. BLUMENAUER mentioned. we just saw an extraordinary outpouring of generosity toward the people of Haiti. and then we have seen another tragedy. and the American people. with regard to Chile. are demonstrating once again that extraordinary generosity. So I think it is so appropriate. and that is why I rise to commend all of those that have made this resolution possible. to accelerate the deduction for the donations that Americans have made. extend that policy with regard to Haiti and to make it possible with regard to the donations that are being made or have been made or will be made for those who have suffered in Chile. Our hearts and our prayers go out to those who suffer in both of those neighbor. friendly nations. They are wonderful people. great friends of the United States. Remembering the victims. I think the Congress. by this action today. not only takes a step that is consistent with the generosity of the American people. but I think makes a very commendable act. So I simply wanted to join my voice of commendation for all of those who have made this possible.
Date: 2010-03-10
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I think this has been a good discussion today. And I think it is appropriate to have it. I certainly hope that the result is clear. and that this Congress today strongly and in a bipartisan way rejects the resolution that is being brought forth. It would be a grave mistake for us to allow the Taliban to regain power in Afghanistan. Sometimes the lessons of history may be a little bit more difficult to explain. In this case. when the Taliban was in power they opened the country up to training camps for terrorists to attack the United States. That was in 2001. It is not ancient history. So I hope we dont forget the lessons of history. In addition. as I said before. Mr. Speaker. our Armed Forces with our coalition allies and the Afghan armed forces are in the midst of the first major offensive in President Obamas new strategy. So I think it would be a grave mistake if this Congress does not clearly and emphatically reject the resolution today. Having said that. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2010-03-10
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. You know. earlier this afternoon. our Democrat colleague. Mr. SKELTON. a decorated war hero himself. came down to the floor and he posed the question. "Have we forgotten 9/11?" I think that this resolution perhaps sends the wrong message that this Congress has forgotten 9/11. and also the wrong message to Americans. Just as our young men and women are always ready and always there for us in the military. we must show equally steadfast loyalty to them. Over 1.4 million men and women are bravely serving our Nation in active military duty today. I have attended sendoff ceremonies for the troops from my district headed overseas. and I have welcomed them home. I have rejoiced with those mothers and fathers and wives who. after months of not being with their loved soldier. are able to spend time with him or her. I have also wept for those who made the ultimate sacrifice. I have wept with their families. They made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. for our safety. Every single soldier that I have spoken to who has been to Iraq and Afghanistan would say that they would go back again. They believe in the mission. It is pretty sad that Congress doesnt. They believe in the work that theyre doing out there. and they need our support. not this resolution. which is. I believe. a demoralizing resolution to our troops. Rather. I would encourage my colleagues to vote against this resolution because by voting against this resolution I believe you will be voting for our troops.
Date: 2010-03-10
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I thank the gentlewoman. Madam Speaker. I join the chairman and ranking member of the committee in opposing this resolution. Sometimes in public debate. we ask the wrong question or we place ourselves in the wrong context. I am reminded of a headline that I saw not too long ago on a domestic issue. The headline read simply: "Prison Population Increases Despite Drop in Crime." For those of us involved in the criminal justice system. we thought maybe it never dawned on the writer that the crime rate was dropping precisely because we were putting the bad guys in prison. Similarly today. this resolution sets an arbitrary deadline for troops to leave Afghanistan. and it is a terribly misguided reading of the facts we face today. Our troops are succeeding. No one questions that. Our allies are helping us. Why then would we handicap them today with such a terrible message from our Congress? The message is. despite what you are doing on the ground. despite your successes. we are going to pull you out with an arbitrary date. What could be more demoralizing? What could be more wrong? Madam Speaker. this resolution. unfortunately. is the wrong question. It sends the wrong message. It is being sent at precisely the wrong time. I hope that we have a strong vote against this resolution so that our troops will have an unquestioned message of support from us that we recognize what they are doing. that we follow what they are doing. that we support what they are doing. and that we rejoice in their victorious work today and in the days ahead.
Date: 2010-03-10
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Speaker. I yield myself the balance of my time. My daughter. Elizabeth. lived with me here in Washington for about 4 years. She was one of the directors for a group called Witness for Peace. which is a human rights organization. I recall very well a trip she led of a group to Haiti. She spent a week in Haiti with individuals from the United States. looking at the situation that the people were in and trying to come up with ways that we could help the people of that country. My daughter passed away about 2 years ago. and I am proud to be part of this bill because she believed in this. She believed in the people. She believed that there was a lot of good that the American people could do for people in this part of the world. So I am just glad to chair this side of the hearing tonight. I would like to do it in honor of my daughter. if you dont mind. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2010-03-12
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I actually came down because I was listening to the debate and I wondered whether there would be room for someone who spoke with the absence of an accent on this floor.
Date: 2010-03-12
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I appreciate that. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just say that there is a fundamental proposition that is before the House that is often forgotten in the discussion of the procedure. as strange as the procedure might be for consideration of this bill. and that is. if this bill were to be brought to the floor. the Senate version. or the House version that already passed. and it were ultimately to be signed by the President. it is my understanding that for the first time in the history of the United States we will condition your legal status in the United States. that is. your ability to remain a legal citizen in good standing in the United States. on the mandated purchase of a product provided by a private entity. but as determined by parameters established by the Federal Government. Is that the gentlemans understanding as well?
Date: 2010-03-12
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. It is sometimes easily called an individual mandate. but no one really talks too much about that. where we have the authority to mandate your continued legal presence in the United States. There has been a lot of debate. some even engendered by comments during the Presidents speech before a joint session. on whether or not people who are here illegally will be covered by all of the government health programs that will be established by law. In fact. that has been at least a matter of contention. whether or not the language contained in the versions would have any meaningful limitation on the provision of health care to people who are in this country illegally. The gentleman is aware of that debate. But here we have a situation where those who are born in the United States would be rendered an illegal status if. in fact. they did not purchase a product mandated by the Federal Government. Of course. in the House provision. that mandate is enforced by way of criminal sanction. first by way of a fine. and then failure to pay the fine could bring one a criminal sanction. In fact. in one way. they are attempting to get around this question of whether or not the Federal Government has the authority to mandate this. They have introduced it by way of a section of the Internal Revenue Code. We know that if one commits fraud in terms of not paying a tax. and they are trying to qualify the definition of the fine as a tax. that you can go to prison for committing fraud on the government in your failure to pay the tax. So it is not a reach. as some have suggested. that the penalty would be. in fact. a criminal penalty. which includes incarceration for failure to follow this mandate. Is that the gentlemans understanding as well? I know the gentleman is a former judge of the State of Texas.
Date: 2010-03-12
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. In other words. an expedited consideration of the legal matters up to the Supreme Court. which we have done on other legislation in the past.