macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2003-04-08
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I am here this evening to talk about H.R. 2. the Republican proposed tax plan. By proposing H.R. 2. House Republicans are prompting a reckless tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent of all Americans. Despite their efforts to deceive Americans. this tax cut will not create Jobs or stimulate the economy. In California. 47 percent of taxpayers would receive less than $100 from *the Republicans tax plan. while the average tax cut for the top 1 percent of California taxpayers would be $35.940. The Republican proposal offers virtually no benefit to the average American. Even more alarming Is that Republicans propose gutting critical programs that many Californians rely on. like Medicare. Social Security and education. to pay for the socalled tax cut. In addition. the Republicans tax package will generate a record $1.4 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Imagine what we could do with $1.4 trillion. We could be using that amount of money to shore up our ailing Social Security and Medicare programs. $1.4 trillion could be used to assist States like California who are facing enormous budget deficits. This would put a halt to increases in property taxes and to cuts in education. If we really want to stimiate the economy. we need to provide tax relief for working families. like the Democratic tax proposal does. Republicans are showing their true values and priorities by giving permanent tax breaks to the very wealthy while shortchanging Americas families. If my Republican colleagues have any regard for hardworking American families. they will heed my plea to not support H.R. 2.
Date: 2003-04-09
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in honor of two of Vietnams most prominent Buddhist leaders and outspoken dissidents. the most Venerable Thich Huyen Quang. patriarch of the banned Unified Church of Vietnam. and his deputy. the Venerable ThIch Quang Do. a 2003 Nobel Peace Prize nominee. Last week. 36 of my colleagues joined me in sending an urgent appeal to the Government of Vietnam. calling for the immediate release of both of these individuals. both of whom are facing complications from advancing age and deteriorating health. Both men have been detained without charge or trial for most of the past 25 years for their peaceful advocacy of human rights and religious freedom. rights guaranteed by the Vietnamese constitution and by the U.N. Covenant on Human Rights. which Vietnam has both ratified and has pledged to uphold. The Venerable Thich Quang Dos alleged crimes included launching an appeal for democracy in Vietnam and organizing a humanitarian effort to rescue flood victims. I urge the Government of Vietnam to release these two men.
Date: 2003-04-09
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker. I have not been in this body very long. but I have quickly learned that the titles we give bills often come out of "Alice in Wonderland." The title of this bill is "Protecting Commerce." The way I read this bill. it is protecting those gun dealers who are engaged in wrongdoing. I am very disappointed that this bill is even on the floor. I had an amendment proposed that I took to the Committee on Rules the other day. and unfortunately. they did not approve it. I represent an area that was recently ravaged just last fall by a sniper. This body at that time was taking up this legislation and. in deference to the victims families. took this legislation off the floor. But by taking this up today. we are adding insult to injury to the victims and the families of those victims. We are rubbing salt in their wounds because many of the families of those victims decided to go to court. They went to court. They took their case to court against a gun dealer whose activities over many years had shown a pattern of negligence that could Very well have contributed to the suffering in their families. And this legislation which was taken off the floor in deference to those victims will now deny them their fair day in court. They are not going to get a fair hearing. And I find this decision of this body to proceed on this to be an insult. not just to those families. but really to decency and justice in the United States. I had an amendment that would have addressed an issue that was adopted in the middle of the night a couple of months ago as part of the 2003 omnibus appropriations bill. At that time we exempted the ATF from requirements that all other Federal agencies are subject to under the Freedom of Information Act to get the information collected with the ATF with respect to those gun dealers who are engaged actively in selling to the criminal market. Why do we want to hide that information from the American people? But we did this in the middle of the night. And so I had an amendment proposed to reinstate the ability of the American people to have access to that information. The committee denied us that opportunity. I think we should have had a fair debate on that question. This bill protects gun dealers who are engaged in wrong doing. It is unfair to all those gun dealers and manufacturers out there who are playing by the rules. It is unfair to them because it taints them with the wrongdoing of a few. And what this bill does is give protection. not to those who are engaged. in the fair dealing in guns. What this does is protect those who are engaged in wrongdoing. those who are engaged in selling mostly to the criminal market. and we have already provided them some additional protection by denying the American people access about who they are. And now they are further shielding them from the justice that American families and the victims are due in this great country. I am sorry we are carving out a special exception for these wrongdoers. and I urge the body to reject this legislation.
Date: 2003-04-09
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do not understand how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can say that this case is clearly set forth in the proposed legislation. because the negligence. number one. the negligence per se doctrine. does not exist in every State. and I believe it is the citizens of those States who deserve the kind of protections included in this amendment. The other exception that is stated in this bill is for knowingly or willfully violating Federal or State law. and it requires a conviction. and that does not apply here either. That implication or that state of mind. that mens rea. requires a specific mens rea. whereas my amendment here only includes a reasonable cause to believe standard. Mr. Chairman. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas
Date: 2003-04-09
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thihk it is important to clarify something that was stated by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They keep talking about negligent entrustment. but negligent entrustment liability only applies when someone knows that person is going to commit a crime. However. this amendment specifically speaks to a different type of mens rea. It speaks to the reasonable cause to believe standard. It does not require. as the current bill stands. .the mens rea of knowingly or willfully. plus a conviction. in order to hold these distributors and manufacturers liable. I think the purpose of this amendment is strictly as an incentive to make sure that sellers and manufacturers and dealers are actually doing the criminal background checks that the law already requires of them. and again. I am talking about having a reasonable cause to believe that somebody is either addicted to drugs or has been mentally adjudicated as incompetent. I think that requiring a higher standard of proof in terms of the initent of the seller or the distributor. plus a conviction. denies legitimate plaintiffs the right to sue in civil court. and so I would urge my colleagues to please support this amendment. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2003-04-09
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. it is part of the bill. My understanding it is a definition in part of the bill.
Date: 2003-04-09
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. if the gentleman will continue to yield. I would say no. I believe it is applied on a casebycase basis under tort law.
Date: 2003-04-09
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Well. if the intention is to cover the incidence that I am talking about. of dealers or sellers or manufacturers who have reasonable cause to believe. why not state that intention clearly in the legislation? My understanding is that the negligence per se definition section in the bill does not state those cases.
Date: 2003-04-09
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing. I just want to say that if we had had the opportunity to bring these amendments up in subcommittee and to discuss them at length. I think we probably could have come to some agreement in terms of what cases wd chose to cover by this piece of legislation and which cases we did not. However. we were not afforded that opportunity because the question was called and debate was cut off. Now we find ourselves here on the floor of the House debating amendments. a scant five. when we had 10 to 15 to offer in subcommittee. This. in essence. cuts off the democratic process. which in essence does not give us the chance to meaningfully consider the amendments .s a way to improve this bill. I urge that my colleagues vote "yes" on my amendment.
Date: 2003-04-09
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

amendment No. 4 by Mr. MEEHAN of Massachusetts. The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote of this series.
Date: 2003-04-09
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. reserving the right to object. I do not intend to object. and I yield to the gentleman to explain his request.
Date: 2003-04-09
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. continuing under my reservation. I want to join the gentleman in supporting this resolution congratulating the Laborers International Union for the 100th anniversary of the founding of this union. Our resolution cites the grand history of this union from its beginning. when Samuel Gompers. the first president of the American Federation of Labor. challenged laborers across the country to coordinate their activities into one cohesive unit. and in response. 25 delegates from over 17 cities. representing 8.000 laborers. met in Washington. D.C.. on April :13 in 1903. From that date to this date. again the laborers meet in this city under the leadership of Mr. Terry OSullivan. their current president. to deal with the issues confronted by this union. This is a union. if we look across the American landscape. that has simply built America. The laborers were there first on most construction projects. be they public or private projects. It is a grand union that has undergone many reiterations in the past and represented many different kinds of workers. but most of us know today it is the hardworking members of the Laborers International Union. and I want to extend my congratulations. And I also want to recognize the work of their director of legislative affairs. Don Kaniewski. who does such outstanding work on Capitol Hill on behalf of the Laborers Union. Mr. Speaker. I withdraw my reservation of objection. .
Date: 2003-04-10
Speaker: CORRINE BROWN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong opposition to this unfair rule. Once again. the Republican Party is slamming their agenda through this Congress with little debate late at night. Mr. Speaker. you can tell something about a countrys priorities by how they spend their budget. As we can see from the Republican Partys budget. they do .not see children. the poor. the hardworking people of this country. minorities. health care. education. or veterans as important. To begin with. our Nations veterans. on the same day that this House voted to commend our troops in Iraq. the Republican leadership pushed through a budget that cut the VA budget by $30 billion. Who else is the victim of this Republican budget? This administrations taxcutting plans have ruined our economy and have helped push African American unemployment up by 10.5 percent. and our countrys poverty rate has gone up while the median income has gone down. This budget is also bad for public housing. HUD is slated for a huge cut. including plans to slash section 8 vouchers that help millions of lowincome residents to pay their rent. They plan to zero out HOPE VI. This list goes on and on and on. I want to conclude by. adding that it should not be a surprise to anyone that this administration has not fully funded election reform. Their proposal falls nearly $1 billion short from the amount authorized in the Help America Vote Act. In the end. the Republican Party does not want election reform. They are just fine with the 2000 election results since they came out on top. even though they did it by stealing with the help of colleagues from Florida. Wake up. America. Wake up. It does matter who is in charge.
Date: 2003-04-29
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Speaker. the distinguished majority leader got up here and said the first priority of the President was the economy. That is interesting for a President who over his 2 years in office has lost 2 million jobs. 2 A million American workers who do not have jobs and hundreds of thousands of others that have run out of unemployment and the President has resisted extending their unemployment benefits. And we will see what happens this May as hundreds of thousands more lose their unemployment and they have no income support for their families. to pay for their homes. to try to help keep their children in school and to pay the doctors bills. It is also interesting that he says that there are two purposes: one is to give tax relief to stimulate the economy. and the other is to keep the government from spending the money because they want to spend all the money. The last time I looked. the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives. the Republicans controlled the Senate. and the Republicans controlled the White House. but apparently we have got to destroy the American economy with these tax cuts before they kill again. They cannot control themselves from spending trillions of dollars. They cannot control themselves from running up the deficit. They inherited a $2 trillion surplus. and they have turned it into a $4 trillion debt. What happened with these people? They have no fiscal discipline. So now they want to spend a trillion dollars to create half as many jobs as the Democratic plan will create for $150 billion.
Date: 2003-04-29
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman for his remarks. The fact that he and I are working together on this. when we disagree on so many other issues. is in the spirit of this program. And as our great former Speaker. Tip ONeill. used to say. you have to be able to disagree around here and not be disagreeable. I am working on that talent. but I have not achieved it yet. But this is in that spirit. Madam Speaker. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas .
Date: 2003-04-29
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentlewoman for her remarks. and to thank again the gentleman from Ohio
Date: 2003-04-30
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to voice my strong concerns over the current state of the economy and the Presidents solution. to stimulate this economy. The President has defended his proposal for a tax cut of at least $550 billion. arguing that a large tax cut will create more jobs. Now. let us see. The last tax cut that this President did was signed into law. and it was the largest tax cut in history. with a cost nearing $2 trillion. How effective has that been in creating jobs? Let us see. It is estimated that 53.000 United States workers lost their jobs this month alone. Unemployment is still hovering around 6 percent. So it looks to me like the President is using more of his fuzzy math here. We need to work to come up with real solutions that reduce unemployment and that help us with respect to education. the environment. child care. and. yes. a prescription drug plan for seniors. If Members want to cut taxes. then alleviate the tax burden on the working poor and on the middle class. do not do it to the wealthy. who are the least likely to get this economy turning.
Date: 2003-04-30
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. I think it is extremely unfortunate that the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules has voted to deny this full body. all 435 Members of this Congress. the opportunity today to vote up or down on meeting the education commitments we have made to Americas children. We many years ago said that the Federal Government was going to pay for 40 percent of the costs for special education. and as we sit here on this floor today. we are only at 18 percent. I know that in campaigns throughout this country when we all go before school boards. Republicans and Democrats. when we talk to parents groups. we have all said how important it is to keep our promise and make that 40 percent commitment. I am very pleased and I want to thank the chairman. of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee for giving us the opportunity to debate that very issue and vote on it in committee. I was disappointed that it failed on party lines. and 1 think it is important that this full House have an opportunity to debate that. This is the reauthorization bill. This is the one time for the next 5 years we are going to be taking up this issue. This is the time to do it. For those who say it is not important. we should leave it to the appropriations process. I would say to those listening it is the difference between giving a guarantee today and rolling the dice every year with the Committee on Appropriations. and we know from history that we have been unable to meet that commitment rolling the dice every year. Now is the time to make the guarantee. Just a little over a year ago. the President signed the No Child Left Behind bill and promised a great deal of more resources to our States and our school boards in exchange for numerous responsibilities that we put upon them. and yet just a little over a year later. we are already failing to make our commitment on No Child Left Behind. This year we are $9 billion short. We need to meet our commitments we made on special ed more than 20 years ago. We need to meet our commitments we made in No Child Left Behind. We should not be pitting these groups against each other. There should not be competition in funds between special education and all other education. Let us vote today to provide our schools and our children the resources we have promised. Give this House an opportunity to do it. Why are we afraid to let 435 Members vote on that issue?
Date: 2003-04-30
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. this is a very important piece of legislation and I hope the Members will have an opportunity to listen to the debate. I wanted to thank my colleagues on the committee. the gentleman from Delaware . the gentlewoman from California
Date: 2003-04-30
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. The arguments here are very similar to the previous amendment. One. it is a very bad idea in terms of policy and accountability and responsibility to these children. but it is also a bit of a hoax. The idea that the parent can take the Federal share of the money. which the gentlewoman says is $1.400. maybe as high as $1.800. and go out and buy the same education they are going to get in the public school system for their children on the schoolyear basis. well. where does the rest of the money come from? At least if this bill had some intellectual integrity. it would say take all the money the school district is going to spend. take the $6.000 on a national average. give that to the parent and let them try to find this education. Obviously. if the parent cannot come up with the additional money. they cannot provide for an education. Or if the child is severely disabled. this will not begin to cover those services. Remember. most of the people who go out to get these services end up suing the school district for those services and the school pays the whole amount. They pay $15.000. $20.000. $30.000. $40.000. or $50.000 because of the kind of intense services that these children need in order to qualify to get a free and appropriate education. That is not what this amendment is about. This is just a shuck and a jive. that somehow you can go out and get these firstclass services for a severely disabled child for $1.400. Again. the bill allows for. and I think it makes sense on one level. supplemental services. If $1.400 will buy the kind of services for a child that Is moderately disabled or has a reading problem or something. and is labeled as disabled. fine. give them the supplemental services. But the notion someone can go out and buy an education for $1.400 is a hoax on the parents.
Date: 2003-04-30
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Rhode Island because I think this amendment causes a great deal of trouble in terms of the questions of the stigma of people. I have talked to an awful lot of parents who have great qualms about whether their children should be identified in special education programs. whether to try to get the child into the program when they know the child needs help or not because they are concerned about what that means in the future. We have struggled with this in the committee and on both sides of the aisle. this question of underidentification. overidentification. and of the illnesses that we should be treating in this setting. I do not think that this language. and maybe it can be improved before the end of this process. but I do not think that this language is proper. It suggests that only a select number of people are fit to pass judgment on whether or not these children are eligible or not. and I think it does create a problem in terms of the question of mental disability and of special education. I hope that we would not agree to this amendment. I think it is very damaging on the front that we have tried to make some progress on with the public.
Date: 2003-04-30
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. this committee has struggled long and hard over many years to try and reduce litigation in this legislation. I think we have a magnet here in terms of litigation. And I also think because the definition of "medically detectable and diagnosable physiological condition." I am not quite sure how we are going to comply with that in the number of conditions that children have. The number of means by which we now diagnose children I am not sure fit within that definition. By the same token. I suggest that does not mean that they are not properly enrolled in these programs and do not have a disability that requires special attentionin terms of .their ability to get an education. I think this is a really bad amendment. and I would urge Members to oppose it.