http://liberatedtext.org/"...The site's initial concept was an intention to mark-up selected Congressional Daily Records that fit within a defined category or topic. The reason for this is because the available methods for accessing Congressional Proceedings transcripts is difficult for most internet users. A free society is well-served if its citizens possess methods to transparently view the production of their elected politicians.
This information need be available, not just so the politicians and other agents of the state can be closely scrutinised. Often, others will deceptively portray what has transpired and what was said in congress for partisan political purposes. This is a successful ploy, largely because these records are not easily accessible by the people.
This was the impetus behind LiberatedText's first Congressional Records Mark-up Project: The Authorization of Force, in which many of the statements made by House Members and Senators regarding the Authorization Of The use Of United States Military Force In Iraq in 2002 was published..."
http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/"Currently, transcripts from October 8, 9 and 10 have been marked-up. The pages have been heavily inner-linked to enable URIs pointing to legislators' words. We welcome any and all links to any content in this project. A detailed Table of Contents is available...
Currently, the site begins with the Congressional Record of October 8, 2002...
Much has been claimed about individual legislators' remarks. Often, their words have been taken out of context. No commentary has been added to the transcripts, and the reader must make their own analysis..."
Detailed Table of Contents
http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/toc.htmlOne example is the Byrd/Sarbanes discussion on 10/10/2002http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-70_01.html"Mr. Byrd: I do, I do. And I say further to my dear friend that as soon as this resolution is adopted and signed by the President of the United States, Congress is out of it. It is on the sidelines. We may wish we could say something. We may wish we could do something. But as far as the human eye can see, we are out of it until such time as Congress asks to repeal this legislation or to put a limit on it internally.
Mr. Sarbanes: Let me ask my colleague this question: Suppose some unforeseen, extraordinary development should take place after this resolution is passed and sent down and signed by the President which transforms perhaps the weapons of mass destruction situation. The President, though, could still move ahead and go to war, could he not?
Mr. Byrd: Yes.
Mr. Sarbanes: They would have been given the authority to do that; would that be correct?
Mr. Byrd: Absolutely. We would have handed this over to the President--lock, stock, and barrel. Here it is.
...
Mr. Sarbanes: That underscores what the distinguished Senator says in this op-ed piece that appeared in this morning's New York Times. I quote:
We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time. Yet that is what we are being asked to do
.
Mr. Byrd: Yes.
Mr. Sarbanes: This, of course, is a decision with far-sweeping consequences, certainly as it deals with Iraq and all of its implication. But the precedent is being established in terms of the future, it seems to me, and that constitutes a major erosion of the role of the Congress with respect to the Nation going to war.
Mr. Byrd: It does. And it is easy enough, I suppose, to pass this resolution. But should we try to negate it, should we try to repeal it, should we try to change the law, a President can veto any change that Congress might bring along later, any change it might enact, in order to overturn this law it is now about to adopt.
Mr. Sarbanes: I am glad the distinguished Senator made that point because that is the next item I wanted to go to. People could say: If the circumstances changed and the Congress wants to pull it back, why not come in, pass a law, and pull it back? But the fact is that a President who wanted to keep that authority and may well want to use it, as long as he could keep the support of one-third--not of each House of the Congress but only one-third of one House, either a third of the Senators, plus one, or a third of the Members of the House of Representatives--he could negate congressional action that tried to pull back this war-making authority, could he not?
Mr. Byrd: The distinguished Senator from Maryland is absolutely correct. It only takes a majority of both Houses to pass this resolution, but it would take two-thirds in the future if the President should attempt to veto a substitute piece of legislation by this Congress to abort what we are doing here today, to appeal it, to amend it. One-third plus one in either body could uphold the President's veto, and that legislation would not become law..."