macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2001-10-04
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I hope that we pass the Boehlert - Kind - Gilchrest - Dingell amendment. I think this is the most important amendment because I think this is really an amendment about the compact that will be forged in this country. about the future of farming in this country. We used to have a colleague in .this Congress from Minnesota. and he used to get up and talk about the farm bill. He was on the Committee on Agriculture. and he would say we have doubled the productivity. of the American farmer every 10 years. And he would say the way we did it was we put half of them out of work during that 10year period so there are only half as many left. We have had farm bill after farm bill after farm bill. and year after year what we hear about is the distress in farm country and the plight of the family farmer. about the people moving to the cities. and the people who cannot leave their farms to their children and cannot produce and make a living. and somebody else in the family has to take a job. My colleague stood up earlier and said this is not an environmental bill. this is a farm bill. Well. America has gotten a lot smaller. a lot more crowded. Farmers cannot farm in isolation any longer. The problems in the Chesapeake Bay. the problems in the San Francisco Bay. the problems in the Gulf of Mexico. the problems in Santa Monica Bay and Puget Sound. many of them start hundreds of miles away on farmlands where farmers do not have the capability. the resources. the wherewithal to protect the runoffs. to protect the offsite impacts of their work. This committee has struggled with that. and the gentleman from Texas
Date: 2001-10-04
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong suppott of this amendment to reform the outdated sugar program. This amendment is supported by Republicans. it is supported by Democrats. it is supported by conservatives. liberals. Easterners. Westerners and all those in between. Three former Secretaries of the Department of Agriculture also support this amendment. In a recent letter. which I will submit for the RECORD. former Agriculture Secretaries Block. Yeutter. and Glickman say. "The sugar program no longer serves the intended public policy goals." And they continue on by saying. "The reform of the sugar program is long overdue." That is what this amendment does. It provides for long overdue reform. I have joined with my colleagues. the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Illinois . in support of this amendment. We have joined together to support the reform of the sugar program for several clear and convincing reasons.. The sugar program costs the taxpayers money. In fact. real money. In fact. a lot of money: $465 million last year alone. The sugar program costs consumers money. In fact. real money and a lot of money: $2 billion in higher prices. according to the General Accounting Office. The sugar program takes away good paying jobs from the American workers. Hundreds of jobs have been lost at the C&H sugar refinery in California in my congressional district. and thousands of candyjobs in the district of the gentleman from Illinois . The sugar program concentrates its rewards on a small number of wealthy farmers. In fact. the General Accounting Office reported that the largest 1 percent of the growers get 40 percent of the sugar programs benefits. The sugar program hurts the environment. In fact. the overproduction of sugar caused by the program is one of the main factors behind the tragic pollution of the Everglades in Florida. The MillerMiller amendment is reasonable. and it provides the kind of reform we need. It does not end the sugar support program. but it does make the program less generous to the sugar growers and thereby makes sugar farming more of a marketbased decision rather than a decision on how big the Federal subsidy will be. The effect is to control the overproduction. which has caused so many of these fiscal and environmental problems. . The MillerMiller amendment would save taxpayers money by reducing the direct purchases of. excess sugar. putting those savings into agriculture conservation programs in desperate need of our support.
Date: 2001-10-04
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment. I recognize the tightness of the budget. but nothing is more important than research. and most especially research that will yield food. There are so many families and so many children that go to sleep hungry and wake up hungry every day. The one way that we can help to solve this problem is to do the research so we can find better ways to have better yields so that the least that we can do is to feed the children. I know that the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and the Hispanicserving institutions would also have an opportunity to join in. who know probably this issue and this problem almost better than anyone else. So I rise in support of the amendment.
Date: 2001-10-04
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. because of my discussion with the chairman and the ranking member. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment and hope that it will be considered at a later time.
Date: 2001-10-17
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for reserving his reservation and also for yielding the time. I just want to comment on one aspect of the conference committee report. and I want to thank the conference committee for its attention. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on a provision affecting the tribal interests in my district. the Lytton Rancheria in California and in the City of San Pablo. Last year the appropriate authorizing committees in both the House and the Senate developed authorizing language to address a land into trust provision unique to the Lytton Rancheria. This conference committee revisited this issue in the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations due to the exceptionally unique circumstances which necessitated the enactment of Section 819 of Public Law 106568. taking lands into trust for the purposes of gaming. I want to clarify that our action here did not diminish requirements that the tribe fully comply with provisions of Public Law 100497 and in particular. with respect to Class III gaming. the compact provision of Section 2710(d) or any relevant Class HI gaming procedures. I want to thank the conferees for their attention to this issue and the determination that the tribe must proceed according to current law. Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on a provision affecting tribal interests in my districtthe Lytton Rancheria of California and the City of San Pablo. Last year the appropriate authorizing committees in both the House and the Senate developed authorizing language to address a land into trust provision unique to the Lytton Rancheria. This conference committee revisited this issue in the Interior Appropriations bill due to the exceptional and unique circumstances which necessitated the enactment of Section 819 of P.L. 106568. taking lands into trust for the purposes of gaming. I want to clarify that our action here. did not diminish the requirement that the tribe fully comply with the provisions of P.L. 100497 and in particular. with respect to Class III gaming. the compact provision of Section 2710(d) or any relevant Class III gaming procedures. I want to thank the conferees for their attention to this issue and determination that the tribe proceed according to current law.
Date: 2001-10-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

I thank the gentleman for yielding and want to thank him and the gentleman from Minnesota for rising also on this. It is just unbelievable to our constituents when we go home and they ask about airport safety to tell them that we have done nothing. that the committee has completed its work. legislation is prepared to go. the Senate has passed the bill. and on the House floor we have done nothing. It is even more unbelievable to them when they read one of the reasons the House has not taken action is that you have the leadership in the Republican Party now telling lobbyists that if they do not come and lobby against this legislation. they will not help them out in other pieces of legislation. they will not help them out on things that matter to them. So what we have now is we have this lobbying game. or fundraising game. or favors game being played in this Chamber. in this House. against the safety of the American people. It is an outrage to the American people. because the gentleman is so right. Today I walked all over San Francisco airport. I saw the entire airport. I was in the line so I could get through the machines to clear your carryon luggage. All that was was the appearance of safety. It was not safety. as the gentleman points out. because we still have not gotten to the point where we have the kinds of technology. the machines. the security. the training. the people in place. So the gentleman is absolutely right. The leadership of this House on the Republicanside of the aisle absolutely ought to be ashamed. They are breaking faith with the American people on getting this legislation to the floor so that we can get on with it. And it is harming our communities. because the American people are not flying unless they absolutely have to. That is hurting the economies in Florida. Texas. Arizona. California. and the State of Washington and New York and all points in between. because the American people are still nervous. And they ought to be nervous. because this Congress has not addressed this issue.
Date: 2001-10-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding. and I thank him very much for being the prime mover in this effort to make sure that our local community firstresponders are fully engaged as this Nation prepares to deal with the threat of terrorism at the local level. and for coming up with legislation that recognizes the difficulty of doing this. but also provides the resources so that it can be done properly. so that. in fact. assessments can be made at the local level of exactly what those kinds of threats might be to our communities. so that there can be regional cooperation. so that the HAZMAT teams can work together. they can learn to share their resources and their knowledge and their training of their personnel and of their response plans. so that there can be a working together. both up and down the infrastructure of our local communities between police and fire. HAZMAT. public health. private health hospitals. people who are going to be called upon to respond to possibly decontaminate a significant number of citizens. or to help a local agency next to them respond with an attack that could take place there. This is not about getting overly dramatic. but it is recognizing that this is something the local communities have done for many years. In California we have earthquake plans. we have flood plans. we have fire plans in some of our rural communities. trying to determine what the threat would be to these communities. how we can respond and whether or not the resources and the training and the personnel will be there. When we now overlay the threat of terrorism on many of these plans. we recognize that we have to go back to the drawing board. I represent an area that has many. many petrochemical facilities in my congressional district. and we have many plans to deal with the communities for the releases or the explosions or the accidents that take place at these facilities from time to time to try and warn a community. to have a shelter in place. or to go to the hospitals or to have a warning system so that they can get immediate information. As many times as we have been through it. it does not always work the way it should. In my meeting yesterday with the county sheriff. with the members of the board of supervisors. with the chiefs of police from the city of Richmond. the city of Martinez. from the Consolidated Fire District. from the HAZMAT personnel. from the people from Kaiser Permanente. the largest health care deliverer in my area. what became very clear was that they need additional resources to do the planning so that the resources will be in place if our communities need these kinds of responses. So the gentleman has put together legislation to provide this money to the local community. I was startled when a number of weeks ago the gentleman told me the percentage of the money. if the gentleman would repeat it.
Date: 2001-10-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. $300 million goes outside the beltway. and yet these are the people who are going to respond. As somebody pointed out earlier. the reason that we have to provide these resources is that these are events that are not of the local communitys making. These are events that are going to occur for a whole host of reasons. none of which can justify them happening. but this Nation has come under attack and. in all likelihood. from the information we receive from our intelligence agencies. will very likely come under attack again. That response is not. that event is not of the local communitys making. but the community will be called upon to do that. We need to make sure that our citizens have the assurance that there will be a plan in place that will try to minimize the harm and the casualties that could occur in the community.
Date: 2001-10-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. a number of our colleagues. the gentlewoman from California had a meeting in her local community. the gentlewoman from California had a meeting in her local community. the gentlewoman from California had a meeting last week in her community. and some of those meetings were attended by Special Agent John Lightfoot from the FBI. And he also was making assessments of some of the plans around bioterrorism. about the HAZMAT. hazardous materials resources available in the community to deal with these. The fact of the matter is that it is a very checkered situation. Some communities like my own. because of the nature of the industry. we have a very sophisticated HAZMAT program with highly trained chemists and people on board to deal with toxic materials. and yet next door they might not have anything. So immediately. the conversation was. how would we respond? And in many cases they said. when we have a refinery explosion. we know people are going to be coming to the hospital. because there has been an explosion. there has been a release of perhaps harmful material. and in this case people will just start walking into the hospital and that is when we will first discover that an event has taken place. The people from the hospital said. we can decontaminate a couple of people. the HAZMAT people said we can decontaminate a few dozen people. but if we have hundreds or thousands of people coming in. we have no plan to deal with that. and we would have to call on the resources of the entire San Francisco Bay region. but those resources are not completely coordinated yet. There are many communities that have absolutely no ability. So the gentleman raises a good point.
Date: 2001-10-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. we have dealt. and again. we do not know the nature of a terrorist attack. how it is carried out on a target. but we have dealt with an Individual refinery explosion or release. of toxic materials. we just had one this last week in my hometown. But if multiple refineries were the subject of the attack. there was talk in Texas of where the concentration of petrochemical industries there. in California and in my area and elsewhere. that would immediately outstrip the current resources. Because the current resources are designed for an isolated. although maybe harmful event. or lethal event. but yet isolated compared to perhaps what we might experience. So I just want to commend the gentleman. if I might. for bringing this legislation to the Congress and securing the coauthors that he has. and also making this a point of discussion in our Homeland Security Task Force in the caucus where I know he and others have raised this. I have been on the other task force. but on this one. Members have told me. Also. I think the gentleman ought to be very proud of the fact that when we go home and we talk to the people on the front lines. they look at this and they gay. this is what we need to do our job if we are. in fact. going to be called upon to provide the kind of protection that we think the citizens that we represent will want. So the legislation is clearly in tune with the needs of the first responders. and clearly it is in tune with their understanding of the kind of threat and the match of resources that would be necessary in a terrorist environment. So I want to commend the gentleman very much for devising this legislation. and hopefully. the House will get an opportunity in short order to deal with this legislation.
Date: 2001-10-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. if the gentleman will yield. my last point. we have had a lot of debates. and I am in the middle of one now that has gone on for several years on the education bill. The desire on both sides of the aisle has been to drive the dollars to the classroom. recognizing that very often education dollars get siphoned off and they do not quite carry out the intent. which is to provide an education to Americas children. They are used bureaucratically. a lot of other ways on the State and Federal level. I think in this. it is the same idea with the gentlemans legislation. that we have to drive these dollars down to the people who in fact are going to be put into the position of responding on behalf of our communities. Driving those dollars for planning. driving those dollars for coordination. for cooperation among various departments and agencies within a region is really about the frontline and the first line of defense for American citizens. So I think this is also very consistent with what we have talked about in this Congress on a number of other subjects about giving local communities that flexibility. but giving them the resources so that they can respond in a firstclass fashion. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Date: 2001-10-24
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. later today we will be called upon to vote on the economic stimulus package presented from the other side of the aisle. Should that package pass. we will create the greatest inequality in the treatment of American taxpayers in decades in this coiintry. We will return to the days of yesteryear where in 1986. 1987. and 1988 corporations were making millions of dollars and paid no taxes. They paid nothing for the privilege of the defense system of this country. They paid nothing for the research capabilities of this country. They paid nothing for the privileges of being an American corporation. Today. we are going to go back and we are going to repeal the alternative minimum tax so those corporations will be back in the position of paying no taxes and at the same time. at a time when this country is at war. when we are asking for shared contribution. shared sacrifice. we are going to dump. the burden of this war. the cost of this war. the cost of this deficit. the cost of bailing out Social Security on the backs of working people and the payroll tax. That is what the Republican Party believes is fair. is equitable. It is wrong. it drips with greed. it drips with special interests and it ought to be rejected.
Date: 2001-10-24
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. the bill before us today. H.R. 3090 fails to provide the necessary immediate stimulus that this Nation needs in this time of national crisis. What we need is responsive and immediate stimulus that helps all Americans. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on America on September 11. 2001 more than 500.000 people are losing their jobs. Nearly 150.000 jobs in the aviation industry and 120.000 hospitality and tourism jobs are now lost. What is worse. the plan before us today puts working American families on notice that they will be served last and least in our new economy. Responsive and meaningful stimulus would target businesses hurt by the current recession. This plan does not. Responsive and meaningful stimulus would help all Americans with tax breaks. and not just distribute billions to large corporations by permanently eliminating the AMThow is this a shortterm stimulusespecially since the refund will date back to 1986. Lets face the facts the economic slowdown that began prior to the September 11. 2001 attacks was worsened by those attacks. The plan before us departs from proven recessionfighting tactics that recognize that extending unemployment benefits and healthcare are crucial to economic stimulus. The unemployment and health insurance benefits provided for under this plan are inadequate and misguided. transferring funds from Federal to State unemployment funds which could allow States to reduce benefits overall. This is wrong. Finally. this bill costs $274 billion over ten yearsdriving the government. once again. into deficit spending. This will require the govemment to borrow from payroll taxes dedicated to Social Security and Medicare all for the sake of tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Mr. Speaker. America needs help now. We must provide it. but this plan is simply not the answer. Finally. the American public needs responsible legislators who will effectively deal with the threat of terrorism. In this special interest Republican tax give away there is not one dollar provided for American securityto fight anthrax. smallpox. help health facilities. postal workers. for airline security and to combat the horror of terrorism. Mr. Speaker. this bill should be resoundly defeated and the Democratic substitute that helps secure America passed.