macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2002-07-16
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

That is the problem. The gentleman is quite correct. I appreciate his question. Then when we get to the floor. we are told we cannot have amendments because itwas on suspension. Mr. Speaker. when is it we get to offer amendments? When is it we get to present a differing view. either on the technical underlying bill or on amendments that are germane. under the rules of germaneness. the rules of the House? Members can be the arbiters of that. But I do not think the Members of the Democratic side should go along with that. I would hope that Republicans understand that and would not support the bill. and we can have this under an open rule. Maybe our amendments would be germane. It is not like we have been busy around here. All of a sudden we have to close down democracy when it looks like we have to take a tight vote. or maybe the minority might prevail. Mr. Speaker. as has been pointed out. a number of our amendments were supported by the Presidents budget. they were supported by Members on the Republican side of the aisle. This is simply about trying to preserve the notion that this is a peoples House. The amendment is not for me or the gentlewoman from California . It is for the teachers in this COntry. it is for the young kids going to school thinking about whether they go into math and science. Do they go to a high poverty area or not. That is who the amendments are for. but that is precluded. Mr. Speaker. I urge all Members on the Democratic side of the aisle to vote against this. and hope our colleagues would join us in trying to preserve some semblance of democracy in the House.
Date: 2002-07-17
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I. thank the gentleman for yielding me time. � I think it has become clear that the language in the appropriations bill has become unacceptable. I think somebody said earlier on the Republican side of the aisle. we should thank them for the language but we should reject it because I think it does not deal with this in a proper fashion. We have all understood and many of us have been struggling for many years on a bipartisan basis on many committees to get around the mismanagement of these funds. to get an accounting and get the money to the people who deserve it. It is a massive mismanagement of the funds by the Federal government and people have been hurt and damaged by this and we must resolve it. I think the gentleman from Washington has made some good points. I think the gentleman from Alaska and others have made some points that we are at a point here where to some extent the Department of Interior does not want to admit that they cannot reconcile the accounts. and we keep giving them money to do a job that maybe they cannot do. Other people are not interested in a settlement at this point. but my concern here with bracketing this to 1985 is we really have not discussed what we do with the others. I appreciate people said our intent is not to close it off. but maybe we ought to reject this language. and hopefully between now and the conference committee be discussing with the parties that this is a staged operation. What happens to the people before 1985 or the accounts in 1985. Is there a parallel negotiations that can be entered into. because everybody has pointed out those records will not be full and complete. . I am afraid that this alone leaves us with kind of a large unanswered question. what happens pre1985. and I know the Members of the committee have expressed. well. this really. we can come along and authorize that later. but that puts a lot of people at a disadvantage. So I think we ought. to reject this language. but we ought to do it in the spirit of what people have said both on the Committee on Appropriations and on the authorizing committee about. I do not know that we can direct in legislative language. a settlement. but we have got to direct the parties that we - cannot keep funding this sort of Alice in Wonderland attempt at accounting when it will not resolve the issue in the end. and it is taking money away from vital programs.
Date: 2002-07-17
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I think the concern here is that some people are affected 1985 to 2000 and other people are affected 1785 to 1985. I think that we have. got to make sure that we can assure both parties that their rights will be protected. but we also have to get them to understand that no matter what we do. no matter what the accounting is. even 1985 to 2000. it is going to be disputed. So we are going to end up at some point in settlement. and those settlemeits must go. forward. I am afraid that the Department keeps asking for money to do the accounting. Part of that is trying to insulate themselves from liability. that they are working on the issue. but they are digging a hole.
Date: 2002-07-17
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I think. with all due respect. it is very clear. I am sorry to the gentleman from Alaska and others. the gentleman from Arizona . when he came here with his special commission. Part of this was about getting the administration. the past administration and others to recognize that they had real liability for these funds. Let us not forget that we were being pushed back by the Department of the Interior for many. many years to somehow this problem did not really exist. The gentleman from Alaska . to his credit. is the one who really broke it open. Now they recognize that they cannot escape that liability. They had had preliminary discussions about settlement. We have got to encourage that to go forward. but we cannot make this decision about 1985 here and now without the consultation of the other parties.
Date: 2002-07-17
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Just on that point. Mr. Chairman. it would be a travesty of justice if the Indian programs.ended up getting punished because of the mismanagement by the Federal Government of Indian trust funds. I appreciate OMB may direct them to do that. but I cannot believe the Congress is going to go along with that directive.
Date: 2002-07-17
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman. and for offering this amendment. Let us just begin that by understanding for $200.000 we are not going to get a quality study covering this range of issues. It is just simply impossible. and to assemble.the expertise for the time and effort to do that. That is why we spent $5 million just on gaming in that commission. Let us all understand that to say that 80 percent of the Native Americans do not participate in gaming does not tell us anything. Many States do not allow gaming. Many do not allow gaming at all. Many reservations cannot participate because it is not economically viable. Many have chosen voluntarily not to do that. R That does not tell us anything about the benefits of Indian gaming. What we ought to do is spend more time on reservations and see the kind of economic development. the kind of economic diversity. the kind of opportunity that is being presented now that did not exist. I sat on the Committee on Resources and watched this Committee on Appropriations appropriate millions and millions and hundreds of millions of dollars in economic development that went nowhere. that went nowhere. just disasters across Indian country. Now we have an opportunity to have some success. They may not like that it is based in gaming. but the fact is that it is successful and it is providing that economic opportunity. I have listened to this ruse argument about organized crime from the day we wrote the first statute to the Supreme Court. and nobody has been able to prove it. nobody has been able to show it. These people operate their casinos under more restrictions than any other operators in the country. This is just disingenuous. Disingenuous is what this is about.
Date: 2002-07-17
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. this is a critical issue for so many reasons. It is not only a question of equity of whether or not California will be treated the same as Florida. but it is also a question about the California economy. Our oceans. our beaches. our seaside landscapes are huge economic engines within our State. They are the engines that drive individuals who want to come and reside there and start businesses and provide opportunity. They are the engines for tourism. They are the engines for a whole range of economic activity. Now. we know that this is a much better oil industry today than it was at the time of the Santa Barbara oil spill. We know that the technology is much better today than it was then. But we also know that we have a much more intense concentration of economic benefits on our coast today than we had then. and that an accident and the risk of that accident for the benefits of the amount of oil available just does not make sense. Mr. Chairman. our colleague. the gentleman from California said. how can we do this? How can we turn down the supply of oil? Well. if we are going to take the supply of oil and put it into cars that get 12 and 13 miles a gallon. we have already made a decision that we are going to waste this oil. Seventy percent of our oil goes into transportation. and earlier this year. this Congress made the decision that we are not going to improve the CAFE standards. not a mile. not 2 miles. not 3 miles. So why would we risk this magnificent coastline. its magnificent benefits to us and its dynamic economic energy. why would we risk that at a time when the Congress has made a decision that they are simply going to waste the oil? We have to support the Capps amendment. I want to thank the gentlewoman for her leadership and her tenacity on this issue. We are not going away until we get the same justice that the people in Florida got and we get it for our economy and for our environment.
Date: 2002-07-17
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I insist upon my point of order. I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and imposes new duties and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states. in pertinent part. "No amendment to a general appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing law." The amendment imposes additional duties. Therefore. I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
Date: 2002-07-17
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. I want to .take a moment to thank the gentleman from California and the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman SKEEN) for securing funding for the Urban Park and Recreation Funding Program. known as UPAR. and for increasing the allocation for National Parks operation. Since its inception in 1979. UPAR has provided over 1.400 grants to 42 States. Puerto Rico. and the District of Columbia for the revitalization of our urban and suburban parks and sports facilities and recreational facilities. for young people throughout this country. The President has zeroed out the UPAR program. and I am thankful to the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman SKEEN) and the ranking member. the gentleman from Washington . for restoring this funding for this critically important urban and suburban program. This is a program that is sponsored by many. many parts of the private sector. from the sporting good manufacturers. pro sports and national league baseball. the NBA. the NFL. the Womens National Basketball Association and so many others who have participated with this in this effort to revitalize these recreational opportunities in our cities and in our suburbs. I also want to thank them. as I mentioned. for restoring and increasing of fund* for the Park Service operations. Over 83 Members wrote to the committee asking for an increase in this. and they were able to secure an additional $118 million for Park Service operations. which are so vital to the operations of the Park Service and to continue to present the kind of experience that the American citizens and people from around the world expect when they visit these massive. worldfamous national parks in our system. I also want to take a moment just to recognize the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman SKEEN). whom I have had the pleasure of serving with in Congress for these many years. and who I have found to be one of the really fun people in the Congress of the United States. who has been a gentleman whenever we have had our disagreements. I have had the chance to travel with him on the issues of trade and agriculture. between Mexico and the United States. and enjoyed listening to him and the information that he understood. given his long background of living on the border. if you will. and understanding the relationships between our two nations. This is the final bill of his career. and I just want to thank him for all of his kindness.. for his generosity. for hearing me out. not always granting my wishes. but at least hearing me out and being very fair about it. I thank the gentleman. and I thank him for his chairmanship of this committee and -for his time served in Congress. It has been a joy to serve with the gentleman.
Date: 2002-07-18
Speaker: CARL B. FELDBAUM (democrat)
Chamber: S

President. Biotechnology Industry Organization. Washington. DC. DEAR MR. FELDBAUM: I was surprised to receive you letter of July 15. 2002. opposing S. 812. The Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act (the GAAP Alt or SchumerMcCain). The record is abundantly clear that the pharmaceutical industry is exploiting loopholes in our HatchWaxman drug patent laws to block less costly generic drugs from coming to market. As our hearings revealed. these actions hurt millions of American patients who are burdened with rising health care costs. The exciting new cures brought forward each day by Americas biotech companies are paving the way for what I believe is the new century of the life sciences. and I remain a proud champion of the biotechnology industry in Massachusetts and across the nation. It is important. therefore. as an industry concerned about the health of all Americans. for BIO to acknowledge the harm to American patients and consumers caused by todays HatchWaxman abuses. Clearly. collusive agreements between brandname companies and generic companies to block cheaper generic drugs from coming to market do not serve the public interest. Similarly. patients are harmed when generic drugs are stymied year after year by unfounded patent evergreening for brand name drugs. I would strongly encourage BIO to be part of the solution to these challenges. The SchumerMcCain legislation addresses these abuses and restores the balance intended under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the HatchWaxman Act). As your letter expresses concerns about the legislation. this letter describes in further detail the Committees intent in addressing them.. The issues you raised include. incorrectly listed patents or patent information with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). use of patents to trigger multiple thirty month stays that delay effective approval of generic drugs. collusive agreements between brand and generic pharmaceutical companies to block subsequent generic applicants from gaining effective approval of their drug products and litigation attacking FDAs bioequivalence regulations that have delayed entry of generic versions of drugs.
Date: 2002-07-22
Speaker: SHEILA JACKSON-LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. today we are here to support the passage of H. Con. Res. 439. which seeks to honor Congresswoman Corinne "Lindy" Boggs of Louisiana. the first woman to be elected to the House from that State. Corinne "Lindy" Boggs was elected to represent Louisiana in a special election held after the devastating disappearance of her husbands plane in 1972. Before her stint in the House. Boggs diligently served as the president of the Womens National Democratic Club. the. Democratic Wives Forum. and the Congressional Club. She chaired the inaugural committees for President Kennedy in 1961 and President Johnson in 1965. She also served as the first female Regent of the Smithsonian. After filling the seat of her late husband. Corinne "Lindy" Boggs helped to found the Congressional Womens Caucus and served as longtime Caucus secretary. On this historic 25th anniversary of the founding of the Congressional Womens Caucus. we look to honor one of the original members. Corinne "Lindy" Claiborne Boggs. The Womens Caucus is a bipartisan group committed to improving the lives of women and families. putting their partisan differences aside. The Womens Caucus supports initiatives that impact women and families. Originally established on April 19. 1977. the Womens Caucus has successfully fought for fair credit practices. tougher child support enforcement. retirement income security. and equitable pay. The Caucus has a long list of accbmplishments in the 107th Congress including. but not limited to. the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. the Civil Rights Restoration Act. the Womens Business Ownership Act. and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Caucus members have championed womens issues around the world reaching from Egypt to China. At the U.N. world conferences on women and children. the Caucus brought to the U.N.s attention the plight of refugees. Few of these accomplishments would have been possible without the insightful and trailblazing leaders of women such as Corinne "Lindy" Claibome Boggs. She served nine terms in the House before retiring in 1990. In 1997. Boggs was nominated by President Clinton to be the U.S. ambassador to the Vatican City. Boggs has served this House and country well. now we have the opportunity to show our gratitude.
Date: 2002-07-24
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. the suggestion that somehow when we all know the list of Americans who could participate in this system and their credentials and their experiences and their expertise. to suggest that somehow those Americans would be less loyal. more subject to leaks. than the existing system. I mean. the best kept secret apparently was HartRudman. the best kept secret in the Nation until 9/11. So I think we have to think about what this means. I think we have to think about what it means for the American people. what it means for the families and what it means for this institution. The day we start to suggest after a catastrophic failure like 9/11 that we cannot have an independent review of that event is the day that democracy is in decline. We all know the mechanisms are in place to provide for the secrecy and the classification and the -right *to know and all the rest of that. and we all respect the importance of. what that means. But those cannot be excuses for failing to discharge our obligation to the American people. We need the Roemer amendment. We need the Roemer amendment to be perfected. That is within the purview of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I would not pretend that I could perfect it. but that is your expertise. But it is that expertise applied to the notion of a public independent review that is so important to the families ofvictims of 9/11. to the American people. and. ultimately. to this institution. to this institution. because it is about whether or not we will have the credibility to proceed with the very difficult choices that we have yet to make about our homeland security. about our national defense and about our intelligence capabilities. I urge support of the Roemer amendment.
Date: 2002-07-26
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise to express my deep skepticism the Homeland Security Act of 2002. We are rushing to undertake the most dramatic reorganization of the federal government in decades. and I am uncertain whether the particulars of this plan are well thought out. As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee I have heard my friend
Date: 2002-09-18
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in strong support of this urgent motion to instruct conferees on election reform. Mr. Speaker. the most fundamental issue facing all of us during this Congress is restoring the publics faith in democracy. To restore that faith in democracy. we must make sure that every vote cast is counted. Equal protection of voting rights laws requires an electoral system iX which all Americans are able to register as voters. remain on the rolls once registered. and vote free from harassment. Ballots must not be misleading. And. again. every vote must count. In the 2000 election. Florida was not the only State where American citizens were denied the full exercise of their constitutional franchise. It happened all over this Nation. Moreover. most of those excluded from democracy were Americans of color. That is why election reform has been the number one legislative priority of the Congressional Black Caucus. We will not be silenced until this Congress answers this call. This is not. however. a black issue or a white issue or a brown issue. It is an American issue. It is a red. white. and blue issue. The survival of our democracy depends on the accuracy and integrity of our election system. Just last week. we received yet another wakeup call from the Sunshine State reminding us that the time for election reform is now and that we must do whatever it takes to pass this election reform bill immediately. I would like to thank Senator DODD.. the gentleman from Michigan . the gentleman from Maryland . the gentleman from Ohio whom I have worked very closely with. the gentlewoman from California . and all the others. most especially the African American delegation from Florida. for bringing the information and offering to be available to answer any questions at any time. I know that this election reform conference committee has been working diligently and they have come close to a compromise on this issue. I hope. Mr. Speaker. that soon. before we recess. this conference report will come out for us to vote on in -an acceptable manner. Now that we have come so close to compromise and now that the next round of Federal elections is right upon us. even though it probably will not affect it. the price for not passing election reform during this Congress is far too high. It is imperative that the conference committee continue its hard work and come to an agreement before the end of this month. We cannot afford to let this opportunity slip away. I know. Mr. Speaker. how many hours the gentleman from Maryland
Date: 2002-09-24
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. pursuant to clause 7(c) of the rule XXII. I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 3295 tomorrow. The form of the motion is as follows: