macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2003-07-24
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman. let me start by talking about what this amendment is not about. It is not about whether faithbased organizations can provide valuable services. They can and they do. In fact. many are currently running Head Start programs. The issue is whether those Head Start programs. faithbased programs that are receiving taxpayers dollars can discriminate in hiring based on religion. whether someone who comes to them with a terrific background in early childhood education can have the door shut on them because they do not pass a particular religious test. because they are not Jewish or not Christian or not Muslim or whatever the particular test is. Now. I have talked to many people around this country involved in the Head Start program. and not one of them has said to me. gee. we could do a much better job teaching children how to read. we could do a much better job teaching children arithmetic if only we could discriminate. if only we could fire the Jews in our organization. if only we could fire the Christians. if only we could fire the Baptists. No one has said that we need to do that. and it is a sad day that that comes up on this bill. Nothing should be more universal. Nothing is more universal in this country than the desire of everyone to provide their children with a good start in life. a head start in life. And yet what this provision of the bill does that we are stripping out is sends a terrible message to the children of this country that it is okay to discriminate based on religion. When we are teaching children in their earliest years the values that we want them to learn. we do not want to teach them the lesson of religious intolerance and religious bigotry. We must support the Woolsey amendment. I urge my colleagues to do so.
Date: 2003-07-24
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 1 minute. The gentleman from Georgia is right. we should look it up. because when it says at least as extensive. what it does is it exempts you from the regulation. So you offer health care services because health care is provided under the law. But what you are exempt from is the legislation that requires screening for all the children in 45 days. So what happens in my district? Some 150 Head Start children are diagnosed with speech and language impairments. and with this knowledge we can immediately provide the services because those are the. regulations and that is the screening that is required. But it is not required under the block grant. My colleagues can use euphemisms. they can play with the language. but the fact of the matter is there is a huge credibility gap between what they say the bill does and what the bill does. That is what we all have to understand. Mr. Chairman. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona . a member of the committee.
Date: 2003-07-24
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. we have had bipartisan support for the Head Start program since it was founded in 1965. so it is extremely unfortunate that here tonight that bipartisan support is being sacrificed for an ideological agenda of block granting. As we have heard tonight. we agree on two things. We all agree Head Start has been a great success story for millions of American children. We also all agree that it can be improved. that it can be strengthened. So here is the great irony. Our committee did strengthen and improve Head Start in one part of this bill. the first part of the bill. That is what we need. We improved the coordination. and that would help millions of children in the Head Start program. Yet in the other part of the bill we take those improvements away. We take the high-. er performance standards away. We take .away the benefits of the Head Start program. so that what we have provided and strengthened on the one hand we take away with the other. It is a bad deal for Americas children. We can do much better. I urge us all to adopt the Miller substitute amendment.
Date: 2003-07-24
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. For months now we have heard stateinents from politicians on both sides of the aisle arguing about what works best for Head Start. I have been listening here all night. and I have been hearing you talk about children who are in households in poverty. I think most of you do not know about that. or households where no English is spoken or households where parents have no education. where parents do not know how to access the education system. or with children who have a speech and hearing problem. Or imagine somebody who sits in a home like that and has all of that and then you can imagine what I looked like 40 years ago. See. I know about these kids. because I am one of those kids. It hurts to hear you talk about how we are not successful. or how we are losers. But we are very successful. We have had a lot of successes with Head Start. All you have to do is ask us. You do not have to imagine it. We write to you about it all the time. Let us keep Head Start the way it is.
Date: 2003-07-25
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this matter before the House. On June 9. the President made it very clear that he wants this tax credit for lowincome working people. the tax credit for their children to be passed and put into law. He wants the Senate provision passed. That was 2 months ago. In those 2 months. the House and the Senate have done very little to advance this ball. Why? Because the extreme radical position of the Republicans in the House of Representatives has essentially kept a conference committee from taking place because they have decided that to take care of a $3 billion oversightin the tax credit. they want to spend $80. billion to get there. That is unacceptable to the President of the United States. that is unacceptable to the Senate on a bipartisan basis. and it is certainly unacceptable to many of us in the House of Representatives. They made a conscious decision in the last hours in the middle of the night in the consideration of the last tax bill that these children of lowincome working parents would simply not get this credit. They had to make a decision between the millionaires who would get $44.000 a year in tax rebate. or if they gave the tax credit to lowincome childrens families. they would only get $38.000 in a tax rebate. The person making that decision was one of the big beneficiaries. Vice President CHENEY. The children had the tax credit when Vice President CHENEY walked into the room. when he left the room. he had the tax ceedit and the poor childrens families didnt have the tax credit. That is the history. Yesterday as the gentlewoman from California pointed out. the President was in Dearborn. Michigan. where he was hailing the first checks to go out to families seeking the tax credit. deserving of the tax credit. and once again. he asked Congress to pass legislation. to pass the Senate bill. He said he wants to extend it to all spectrums of society. Now maybe the Republicans in the House of Representatives think that President Bush is a wildeyed. radical liberal who wants to take care of some families who are undeserving. I do not think he is. I think what he recognizes is that this is a matter of equity. This is a matter of whether or not people who go to work every day. work their tails off. and at the end of the year end up poor. and that this Congress decided we were going to place an additional value on the cost of raising these children. and we were going to help Americas families with a child tax credit. But the Republicans in this Congress decided the poor children were not going to be worth as much. Just a coldhearted calculation. stonecold decision that these poor children Just are not worth as much. That somehow. their parents are not as noble when they go to work every day as millionaires are when they go to work every day. Mr. Speaker. that is the calculation that this President has asked this Congress. these Republicans to reject. and to pass the tax credit so that these childrenwill get their share of equity in American society.
Date: 2003-07-25
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I find it incredible that the gentleman on the other side of the aisle would suggest that somehow these are not responsible people. that they accept the privileges of living in this country. but they are not responsible because they do not pay income taxes. so they are not entitled to the tax credit. These people would love to pay more taxes. They would love to be rich. They go to work every day hoping that someday they might get rich. might get a benefit. They would love to pay more taxes. but the gentleman says they are not responsible. I guess that extends to the soldier who is putting his life on the line to defend the privileges that the gentleman talked about. and because he gets taxfree income while he is in battle risking his life. his family should not get a tax credit? I think that soldier is a fairly responsible individual. and I bet his family is fairly responsible. But he does not pay much in taxes because we do not pay him much to do his job. That is your idea of the tradeoff in America between those who are entitled in America and those who get privileges? This tax cut is denigrating families who work hard every day. and their children. and the military.
Date: 2003-07-25
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in strong support of defeating this rule and keeping our promises to our veterans.
Date: 2003-07-25
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of defeating the previous question so we will have an opportunity to properly fund AmeriCorp. AmeriCorp is desperately in need of $100 million to make sure we do not provide the kinds of cuts that can be devastating. not only to the AmeriCorp volunteers. but to our communities. In my own State of California. we are talking aboit cuts if this funding is not realized of some 64 percent. That means some 2.000 service members in AmerlCorp. young people volunteering. will not be eligible to have their positions continued. This is not Just about them. it is about the work they do in our communities. in afterschool programs. building affordable housing. to help the communities respond to disaster. and C helping to train a new core of teachers. nit Those are the services they provide. the That is the multiplier that they pro- un vide. cor Many of us have witnessed sin AmerlCorp workers at work. We spend 11 time with them at social occasions and mu you start to appreciate their infectious me enthusiasm and their desire to help fie their country and help our commu- ma nities and help young people and older vit people. They provide a huge amount of the services. And yet because of a squabble. I because of a mistake by the executives co In the corporation. we are now going to Vo] hold these young people liable We are th( going to decimate this program. do rel 0 1145 tol And we do thatin light of the fact job that the President of the United States 20. asked us to increase AmeriCorps from thE between 50.000 to 75.000 new volunteers. LE recognizing the spirit and the contribu- Ne tion that AmerCorps makes to our tol communities and to our Nation. But are now. what we find out is that this sup- Co plemental. if we do not defeat the pre- hi vious question. will provide for 28.000 til positions. That Is an anemic form of C AmerCorps in a country that has so ior many needs and has. the ability to at- ME tract the best of these young people co with their talents. with their edu- mt cation. and with their desire to help an our communities. ple So I would urge my colleagues to pr vote against the previous question so er3 that we can open up this supplemental to provide fpr the funding for grc AmerlCorps that Is so urgently needed. th
Date: 2003-07-25
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia changed her vote from "no" to "aye." So the amendment was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. Stated for:
Date: 2003-09-03
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of H.R. 2309. the Stephen Horn Post Office Building Designation Act. This bill honors a former distinguished Member of Congress. Steve Hom. For years. Mr. Horn fought to have the City of Signal Hill get its own Zip Code. In honor of his accomplishment it is appropriate that we designate the Signal Hill Post Office after Mr. Horn. This is just One of many examples that illustrate Steve Horns commitment and willingness to fight for his constituents. With the same vigor. it is an honor for me to be representing some of his constituents. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill to honor Steve Horns commitment to public service.
Date: 2003-09-04
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairmar. 1 move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in strong support of this amendment to strike section 114 from the fiscal year 2004 transportation appropriations bill. and I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin . my committee leader. for offering it. along with the gentleman from Massachusetts . This is obesity USA right now. And in Texas along with obesity. we have air pollution. and I believe that the enhancements funding. although small compared to the highway funding. contributes in a major way to building a healthy. active and communitybased society. In the DallasFort Worth region. we see families and kids out riding. walking. skating on the Katy Trail every weekend and often during the week. We see people riding bicycles to the park and ride areas to get on the DART area transportation system. The types of trails build a sense of community. They promote physical fitness and increase property values. Enhancements also promote safe ways for kids to get to school. Studies show many more kids want to ride or walk to school. but there is insufficient money to promote safe routes to school. And we see overwhelming obesity in our young people now which leads us to have to spend a great deal more money for health care later. If transportation enhancement funds are cut. there will be virtually no incentives for States and gommunities to continue to create balanced integrated transportation systems. For more than 20 years through the transportation enhancement program. communities across the Nation have developed and implemented alternative forms of transportafion that promote livability. connectivity. and a better quality of life. The vast majority of these projects are locally selected and are of tremendous value to the communities. We need substantial highway funding. but more importantly. we need a balanced transportation system. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and restore funding for enhancements that contribute to a higher quality of life. personal health and livability in all of our communities.
Date: 2003-09-09
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of AmerCorps. a program that offers an opportunity for young people and Americans of all ages to contribute to their communities. It makes the dream of college education a reality for families who work hard and play by the rules while meeting compelling human needs in our communities in a costeffective manner. I have been supportive of all national and community service initiatives President Bush appealed for in his 2002 State of the Union address. But the majority side of the appropriators refused to include AmerCorps funding in the supplemental appropriations bill. Mr. Speaker. the lack of supplementary funding for AmeriCorps has had a vital impact on Dallas. my hometown. and the other AmerlCorps programs across the State. Throughout the past year. nearly 72 AmeriCorps volunteers have tutored 691 youths in the State of Texas including the Dallas Habitat for Humanities and the YMCA of Dallas Oak Cliff Branch. In Texas. as in other States. AmerCorps volunteers provide a host of services including building affordable housing. teaching computer skills to youth and seniors. and managing afterschool programs aimed at youngsters who might otherwise drop out of school. Mr. Speaker. we will not find common ground or reach higher ground if we tum national service into a partisan playground. I will continue to work hard and do everything I can to strengthen this program. and I ask my House colleagues to do everything as well.
Date: 2003-09-09
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. there are certainly problems with the old A76 that I believe should be corrected. but I also believe that the new A76 is. in many parts. worse and creates a more unfair playing field for Federal employees.
Date: 2003-09-09
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. let me respond briefly to a few of those points. There is no doubt that whenever we do these competitions. and I think these competitions are a good thing if done fairly. when we do these competitions. it does cost the taxpayer money just to set them up and run them. Just as the gentleman from Virginia has said. that is an expense. That is why it is baffling to look at the new circular and see that. unlike the old version. the new circular does not require that the private contractor show some savings is going to be achieved from their bid. It used to be you had to show at least a 10 percent savings or $10 million or whichever is less. That is not part of it any more. And yet we will go through the expense of setting up these competitions and taking out the one provision that ensured some kind of savings for the taxpayer. Number two. I share the gentlemans concern about the Federal employee who is planning a career. investing time and energy and knowledge in the Federal Government because the Federal employees can win the bid and the next day they could be subjected to another round. And within 5 years. it Is required after 5 years that they be subjected to another round of competition. There is no such requirement placed on the private contractor. There are many other issues. I just think it Is time to send them back to the drawing board. They may have spent a lot of time on it. but they did not get it right. Let us let them get it right. Mr. Chairman. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California . the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform. someone who has spent a lot of time working on this issue as well and who has been pushing the issue of fairness to Federal employees.
Date: 2003-09-09
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Chairman. I think one thing we agree on is that what we want is the best deal for the taxpayer. and the way to get the best deal for the taxpayer is to have a fair competition process between the Federal employees and between private contractors who are competing for that. That is how we get the best deal. What this new circular does is tips the playing field in favor of private contractors. That is the only way the association *of private contractors would be able to predict in advance now before any of the bids have been placed that Federal employees will only win 10 percent of the contracts in the future. in contrast to about 60 percent now. I outlined a specific series of fatally flawed problems with the new circular. I have not heard any response to any of them. One. Federal employees are not given the opportunity to come forward with their best bids. two. we are not guaranteed any savings under the new process. although we were under the other process. three. artificially inflated overhead costs in Federal employee bids that put them at a disadvantage. Many other problems. unfairness with regard to health benefits. Those are all problems. I represent many Federal employees. and I know that the organization that represents Federal employees. the American Federal Government Employees Group. is against this new circular. They speak for their fellow Federal employees. This is a bad idea. and all we are asking in this amendment. not to get rid of the process. The idea of having a competitive process is a good one. It is good for the taxpayers. and when it is done fairly. it is good for everybody. Let us go back to May 29. It still had problems but this does not fix it. This makes it worse. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
Date: 2003-09-10
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to express my great concern over the direction the Bush administration is leading our country. Simply put. we are spread too thin on every front. As a whole. our military is dangerously overextended. Just yesterday. our National Guard and Reservists were informed that their tours in Iraq have now been extended to 1 year. months longer than many initially anticipated. Deficits are at a record high. homeland security spending is grossly inadequate. and the true cost of our military campaigns In Iraq and Afghanistan is.becoming more apparent every day. Just this past week. President Bush requested an additional $87 billion from Congress. an emergency spending request not seen since the early months of World War II. [ This symbol represents the time of day during the House proceedings. e.g.. E5 1407 is 2:07 p.m. On top of all this. on top of all this. President Bush is still demanding that Congress make his expiring tax cuts permanent. a measure that will cost -over $1.1 trillion through 2013. Mr. President. where are we going to get this money from?
Date: 2003-09-10
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the leaders on the bill. I am pleased to join my colleagues from Texas this morning in honoring Rafael Palmeiro of the Texas Rangers. a major league baseball team. for his accomplishment in reaching the 500 home run marker in May. Along with his honors. he also has numerous other hitting records. 3 Gold Gloves at first base and he has never been on the disabled list. But it is not just his excellence on the field that explains why he has legions of fans across Texas and the country. He is a man of outstanding character. He is humble even though be is distinguished and destined for the Hall of Fame. It is his humility that he takes out into our community. contributing to so many important causes in the Dallas. Ft. Worth area. the Lena Pope Home in Ft. Worth. Shoes for Orphan Souls. and his own organization. Raffys 500 Club. Throughout his career. he has spent his time encouraging foster parenting. actively participating in the Make a Wish Foundation. encouraging our youth to read. and raising money for numerous disease research foundations. He is an inspiration to all of people of all ages and he means so much to us in the Dallas. Ft. Worth metroplex. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill. I thank the gentleman from Texas for highlighting the hard work and dedication of Rafael Palmeiro..