macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2004-10-06
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland . who again was the spark plug for getting this legislation before the full House and getting this bill. to the floor.
Date: 2004-10-06
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself the balance of my time. Again. Mr. Speaker. we support this legislation. But it is interesting. you know. with the 10year Tbill rate at 4 percent and the 2year bill or the 3year bill at about 1.5 to 2 percent. that a very select group of lenders can get 9.5 percent. the only place in the world you can get a return of 9.5 percent on your money. or the difference between the margin there. It is the only place in the world you can go to get this money. unless you are borrowing from the Mafia. But what happens with this legislation is. while hiding behind a legitimate claim by nonprofits. they keep open the recycling loophole that is overwhelmingly used. according to the General Accountability Office. by forprofit lenders. Nothing to do with retroactivity. because we stop this practice in the future. and we can stop recycling in the future. But they have chosen not to do it. They said. if the Democrats had cooperated. they would have done this earlier. Well. we are cooperating. so do it. It is earlier. Do it now. We have this newfound power bestowed upon us by the chairman of the committee. We want it now. You said you did not do it because we did not cooperate. The more I think about it. it was a brilliant strategy because we did not have to take all that other stuff in your legislation. where these kids were going to lose their rights to lowinterest loans and be able to lock in lowinterest loans in repayments. We did not have to take all that. which "would have punished millions of young people. and we are going to get this loophole closed. too. Sounds like a brilliant piece of strategy. And here we are at the end of the session with the Republicans implementing. talk about bipartisanship. the Republicans are now implementing this Democratic strategy. It is a wonderful evening to. be here at midnight to finally see where the Republicans are saying the Democrats made us do it. Mr. Speaker. we enthusiastically support this bill. We hope that the Republicans next year will go. the full steps to closing the l6ophole in its entirety. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2004-10-07
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I rise today to voice my frustration over H.R. 10. the House Republican . leaderships version of intelligence reform. Instead of following in the tradition of the 9/11 Commission. which issued a thorough. bipartisan recommendation. the House leadership shut Democrats out. We were not allowed to help in drafting this legislation. This legislation actually undercuts the Commissions recommendations. the 9/11 Commission recommendations. For example. the 9/11 Commission was adamant that an effective National Intelligence Director. or NID. be given powerful personnel authority. This bill does not do that. The 9/11 Commission was adamant that the NID be given substantial authority over the personnel of our national intelligence agencies. This bill does not do that. The 9/11 Commission was adamant that Congress increase its oversight over the intelligence community. but H.R. 10 limits congressional oversight. I offered an amendment to H.R. 10 in the Committee on Armed Services to partially correct that problem and it was defeated by a partyline vote. but my amendment would have required that the first NID be confirmed by the Senate. a measure that was strongly recommended by the 9/11 Commission. H.R. 10. in contrast. gives the President. whoever he or she may be. the authority to make the CIA director thd first NID. Now. the first NID. the first director. is very important in this process because he or she defines that office. They indicate how serious our government is about intelligence reform. and it sends a message to our enemies that we are determined to root them out at home and abroad. This bill shuts Congress out from finding the best person for that job. In actuality. this bill does a great disservice to the American people who are counting on and who actually want real reform and meaningful oversight of our intelligence community. I believe that this is the wrong way to move forward on such an important issue.
Date: 2004-10-07
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the other day I heard the majority leader. the gentleman from Texas assert on the floor of this House that the 9/11 Commission recommendations legislation were. being considered by the various committees in this House on a bipartisan basis. Well. in the Committee on Government Reform. there were some areas of strong bipartisan agreement. As the gentleman from California said. one of those areas was the need to implement one of the central recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report to develop a system of informationsharing among different Federal Government agencies that collect and analyze information. When you are trying to pull together information about a threat. it makes no sense for one agency to keep hold of its information and not share -it. You need all the pieces to put together the puzzle. Now. this bill. H.R. 10 as it was introduced. had nothing with respect to informationsharing. So I. together with some of my colleagues. offered an amendment in the committee to do exactly that. And on a bipartisan basis in the committee. supported by the chairman of the committee. and echoing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. we unanimously supported that amendment and that recommendation. Well. guess what? The bill left committee and on the way to the floor. that informationsharing amendment was stripped out of the bill by the House Republican leadership and replaced by what is just a hollow shell. virtual dribble. nothing of serious substance on that issue. Apparently. the real test being applied here by the House Republican leadership is not bipartisan cooperation. but where there is bipartisan cooperation on the committee. let us get rid of that provision of the bill. because it does not fit with the overall objective. which is to use this bill and use national security for pure political purposes. Why would the House leadership remove a provision also contained in the Senate CollinsLieberman bill to promote informationsharing? Why are they sticking up for creating separate turf and different flefdoms among government agencies? That is a question they are going to have to answer to the victims and the families of the victims of 9/11. -
Date: 2004-10-07
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I thank our ranking member. the gentleman from Texas . He has been doing a great job. and we are going to miss him. What do we need to do to be safer? I think there are three things we need to fix the intelligence system: we need to protect our infrastructure. we need to protect our assets in this country. and we need to prepare. We need to know how to react to an attack that is called the First Responders Issue. but I think this bill falls very. very short of really helping America. For example. protection of our ports still remains a glaring vulnerability in our Nation. and H.R. 10 largely ignores maritime security imposing a deadline or two. but really as far as things not really getting to what the problem is. The Coast Guard estimates that required port security upgrades will cost $5.4 billion over the next 10 years. and despite this estimate. the administration has requested less than 1 percent of that amount for port security improvements. A terrorist attack involving a container at our ports could result in substantial loss of life and billions of dollars of economic losses.
Date: 2004-10-07
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker. I want to talk about a provision tucked into this bill that has not gotten a lot of attention. but it should grab the attention of anyonewho cares about fair treatment of the American taxpayer. I just take you back to 1998 when. in response to concerns about overly aggressive IRS collection tactics against .individual taxpayers. this Congress. the House and the Senate.. passed the IRS Restructuring and. Reform Act. That act specifically prevented IRS agents and their supervisors from being evaluated or rewarded based on the amount of tax revenues they collect. The reason for that was pretty simple and straightforward. We wanted to make sure that those agents treat taxpayers fairly and objectively. We wanted to make sure they did not have a personal stake. financial stake. in :how much they collected and the outcome of disputes with taxpayers. We did not want to turn them into bounty hunters. Well. take a look at this bill. This. bill has a provision that will authorize private contractors and private debt collectors to go out and collect. the tax revenues of taxpayers and get a commission on it. They get to pocket that tax money. and they get a commission based on how much they collect from the taxpayer. and that is money that goes into their pockets. not into the public Treasury to spend on the public good. I do not think anybody in this body focused on this issue on either side of. the aisle. I think it is going to be tough to go back home and explain how you. unleashed these private debts collectors on the American taxpayer. I will say. when the Treasury appropriations bill was on -this floor just a few weeks ago. by a voice vote. this body said. we cannot spend money for the purpose of private debt collection. The body was right then. we were right � back in 1998 when we passed the IRS Restructuring Act. and it is a mistake to reverse that policy and unleash private debt collectors on taxpayers and let them pocket the. money. rather than have those funds go into the public Treasury for the public good.
Date: 2004-10-07
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Ms. M cC4RTHY of Missouri and Mr. ROHRABACHER changed their vote from "yea" to "nay." So the conference report was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. Stated against:
Date: 2004-10-08
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in strong support of the Department of Defense Authorization Conference Report. And I am pleased that the report includes a number of provisions that I have worked hard on in this committee. For example. it requires the Department of Defense to make recommendations about how to alleviate the financial burden that we have placed on many of our Guard and Reserve families. It calls for establishing joint training programs of military and civilian personnel for postconflict reconstruction operations. It expands the mission of the Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the service academies to look at sexual assault across all of our military services. and it requires the Department of Defense to analyze the legal codes that are currently being used to prosecute sexual assaults. We have to make sure that the morale of our soldiers. in particular our women soldiers. is not -undermined b mistreatment within our own military. There are elements missing from the -bill that would have made this legislation even strongek. I am disappointed that we were not able to close the pay gap between the Guard and Reserves even more because our Guard and Reserves now comprise over 43 percent of our forces in Iraq. I also wish that we could have done more to expand child care and family services for our service members. And I am also disappointed that we are going to go ahead with the development of a new nuclear weapon. the robust nuclear Earth perpetrator. This is particularly troubling at a time when we are asking other nations around the world to stop their emphasis on pursuing nuclear weapons. I think that we are sending a very mixed message here. Overall. I think this is a great bill. and I thank the chairman. and I thank the ranking member for putting it together and for supporting some of the initiatives that I have been championing in the committee. In particular. I thank my ranking member.
Date: 2004-11-17
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1446. the California Missions Protection Act. I thank my colleague from California.. Mr. FARR. for his continued role in preserving the Golden States wonderful treasures. I also thank our distinguished California colleagues in the other chamber for their leadership and support in pushing this bill through the Senate. The missions inspired by Father Junipero Serra are a favorite destination for millions of people around the world. These historical monuments are a symbol of Catholicism. and the- early efforts to unify Native Americans with the Spanish settlers. We admire the missions as a sanctuary. a place of worship. and a symbol of American History. In 1769. Father Serra erected Mission San Diego Alcala. This would be the first of 21 historic missions built along the beautiful Pacific coastline. The missions have been a significance part of Californias culture for over two centuries. Even Pope John Paul II. recognizing the significance of Father Serra. blessed these missions in his visit to the San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo Mission in 1987. The citizens of Orange County treasure our local mission. Mission San Juan Capistrano. Created in 1776. it continues to be used as a place of peace and worship. We consider ourselves fortunate to experienced the Serra Chapel. the only building left in which Father Serra gave mass. We watch in delight every year as the world famous swallows return to their summer home. Unfortunately. after two centuries of wear and tear. as well as numerous earthquakes. much .of the infrastructure of these buildings is deteriorating. It is our interest.for the sake of preservinga piece of American History. that we put forth the effort to restore these elegant buildings and artifacts. Again. I thank the Honorable SAM FARR for his efforts to restore Californias treasures. I am proud to support his efforts. and the efforts of so many others to protect and preserve the Missions of California.
Date: 2004-11-18
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. as we prepare to convene the 109th Congress. one of our top priorities should be getting our fiscal house in order. Unfortunately the Republican leadership is sending us in the wrong direction. The House voted recently to raise the debt limit by a total of $800 billion. The vote to raise the debt limit for a third time in 3 years is a direct consequence of the reckless fiscal policy pursued by the Republican leadership over the last few years. A key step to putting America back on the path to financial security would be reimplementing payasyougo policies. The House Republican leadership blocked efforts to restore these rules. Using payasyougo rules. the Clinton administration helped turn a $290 billion budget deficit in 1992 into budget surpluses in 1998. 1999. and 2000. As a result. the Clinton administration was successful in paying down $362 billion in publicly held debt. However. in 2002. the Republican leadership let the payasyougo rules expire and once again we are facing endless budget deficits and soaring national debt. Debt increases have serious consequences for American families. At a time when the House leadership is promoting more and more tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans. increased budget deficits create an enormous debt that will mortgage our future. While a few are benefiting disproportionately from certain Bush tax cuts. all Americans will pay the consequences through the rising "debt tax." Throughout our history. every generation of Americans has worked to leave our children a world that is stronger and more secure than the one that was left to us. That is our legacy and it should also be our commitment. It is simply wrong to run up a debt on our national credit card and leave our children to pay the bill. We must take personal responsibility to return our Nation to fiscal responsibility.
Date: 2004-11-18
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in opposition to S. 2986. a bill that will increase the debt limit of the U.S. Federal Budget from $7.4 trillion to $8.2 trillion. Why am I voting against this bill? I am following a basic rule that families in my district. and throughout the country followdont spend money you dont have. When my constituents sit down and look at their credit card bills. they dont say. "Oh look. Im in debt. I guess I better spend more." No. they think about where they can save money. in big and small ways. And they prioritize. And maybe. if there is something that they really need. they decide to work a little overtime next to add some more money to the balance. That is exactly how government needs to function. Govemment needs to exercise fiscal responsibility. Government needs to spend within its means. or raise more money to finance unmet needs. The Republican majority. unfortunately. does not seem to understand this basic principle. It increases federal spendingmore than any other government in recent historyand it simultaneously cuts taxes. They want to have their cake and eat it too. It is the time for the majority to start practicing what they preach about fiscal discipline. It needs to keep an eye on both the spending and revenue columns in the ledger. It needs to prioritize and economize. particularly in the areas where we are spending the most. Lets be realistic. Families cant balance their budgets by spending dollars and saving pennies. they need to make real economies. Similarly. we cant balance the budget on the back of domestic spending. Comparatively speaking. domestic spending makes up an insignificant part of our budget. If Congress really wants to balance the budget. it is going to have to look at entitlements. interest on debt. defense spending. and were going to have to think twice about projected tax reductions. The future fiscal health of the United States is in our hands. I urge my colleagues to be more responsible with the money of the taxpayers of this country. There are no more excuses.
Date: 2004-11-19
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: S
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. in 1965 my siblings and I used to play in the construction site of Anaheim Stadium. In 1966 the Angels played their first season in Anaheim. California. It took us from 1966 to 2 years ago to win a World Series. and boy were we proud of our Anaheim Angels. Today I rise in strong support of the city of Anaheim in its quest to save the Anaheim Angels. The new owner wants to change the name to the Los Angeles Angels. The city of Anaheim does not want -that. The fans of the Anaheim Angels do not want that. Even the City of Los Angeles does not want them named Los Angeles Angels. See. AnaHeim is not Los Angeles. So today I hope that Artie Moreno. the new owner. will realize that they are champions and they are the Anaheim Angels and they should remain the Anaheim Angels.
Date: 2004-11-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of this conference report to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Let me at the outset thank Chairman BOEHNER. Subcommittee Chairman CASTLE. our ranking member. Mr. MILLER. and our -subcommittee ranking member. Ms. WOOLSEYalong with our Senate colleagues. the rest of the conferees and their stafffor all of the hard work and long hours that went into producing this agreement today. This is not a perfect bill. But it is a significant improvement over the House IDEA bill that I and most of my colleagues on this side of the aisle felt compelled to oppose in April 2003. and I believe it represents the best outcome that could reasonably have been expected in our current legislative environment. In particular. I am pleased to see that this legislation restores some of the protections afforded. to children with disabilities that the Housepassed IDEA bill would have taken away. Moreover. I fully support the steppedup monitoring and enforcement authority granted the Secretary of Education under this bill. And I believe the compromise reached with respect. to certifying highly qualified special education teachers is a good one. However. while the conference report adopts the Senates 7year authorization path to full funding. I remain concerned that the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill we will soon be considering will once again fall short of the $12.3 billion authorized to fund this critical law. This is the 30th year in a row we have failed to meet our IDEA funding obligationsa record I consider to be an enduring disgrace. Vor that reasQn. I believe more than ever that we should make IDEA funding mandatory and place it on a near term. certain path to completion. Toward that end. the very first bill I introduced in the 108th Congressthe Keep Our Promises To Americas Children and Teachers (PACT) Actwould .have fully funded IDEA as well as the No Child Left Behind law. In the 109th Congress. I intend to make the Keep Our PACT Act the very.first bill I introduce again. and I invite all of my colleagues to join with me in that effort.
Date: 2004-11-19
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I also want to point out one oversight. A sentence in the Statement of Managers language of the Conference Report that provided the explanation for the attorneys fees language was inadvertently left out. By adding at Note 231 sections detailing the limited circumstances in which LEAs and SEAs can recover attorneys fees. specifically Sections 615(i)(3)(B)(i)(l1) and (111). the Conferees intend to codify the standards Set forth in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC. 434 U.S. 412 (1978). According to Christiansburg. attorneys fees may only be awarded to defendants in civil rights cases where the plaintiffs claims are frivolous. without foundation or brought in bad faith.
Date: 2004-11-20
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. and. as we all understand. the Committee on Appropriations plays the cards that they are dealt. In this instance. they have been dealt a set of cards with a great big deficit and not much room to work. I want to thank the Committee on Appropriations for the effort they have made to.bring this bill together. and I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for his stewardship of this committee. I must say. however.-that I am deeply disappointed in the figures for education. From kindergarten to college. this legislation disappoints Americas children. its families and its educators. In title I education. we see a reduction of almost 50 percent or a little over 50 percent of the money that the President asked for that is not in this legislation. In special education. where we have constantly pledged that we were going to move toward full funding. and in fact provide full funding. this year we see now we have backtracked on the effort that was being made. because almost $600 million is cut out of that request for an additional $1 billion. There are afterschool funding cuts. and some 85.000 students will lose their Pell Grants and tens of thousands of others will because of the eligibility reconfigurations by the administration. A bad bill from kindergarten to college.